THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. versus RINCYMOL MATHEW

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 10-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
v.
RINCYMOL MATHEW
(Civil Appeal No. 8031 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service law: Denial of the benefits of CAS to the respondent
on the ground that her initial appointment as Lecturer in the School
of Medical Education was not to a post that was duly sanctioned in
terms of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes – Single Judge of
High Court allowed writ petition filed by respondent by observing
that the appointment of the respondent as Lecturer was after
following selection procedure and that she was duly qualified and,
thus, directed to count the past services of the respondent in the
School of Medical Education in accordance with the UGC
Regulations and to grant the benefit of CAS – Division Bench of
the High Court upheld the order of Single Judge – Appeal by
University – Held: Respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the
regular pay-scale after inviting applications from qualified
candidates – The said appointment was after obtaining appropriate
approval from Director, School of Medical Education and sanction
by the Vice-Chancellor and thereafter her probation was declared
w.e.f. 03.10.1999 – Thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant
Professor and thereafter as Associate Professor continuously in the
regular pay-scale – It may be true that at the relevant time when she
was appointed as Lecturer, the post was temporary but on that
temporary post, her appointment was sanctioned by the Director as
well as Vice-Chancellor – She has continuously worked right from
1998 (03.10.1998) – As per clause 10.1(f) with respect to grant of
CAS, the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of
more than one year duration can be counted provided that : (i) the
period of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the
incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted
Selection Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the
permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service,
without any break – In that view of the matter, when respondent
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 642
642
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
worked continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter
her probation was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed/promoted
as Assistant Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of
Associate Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale,
therefore, she shall be entitled to get her regular service counted
for the period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of
grant of the benefit of CAS – Interference with order of High Court
not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole.
As per clause 10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or
temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted
provided that : (i) the period of service was of more than one
year duration; (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the
recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and
(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in
continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any
break. In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked
continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her
probation was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed/promoted
as Assistant Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post
of Associate Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale,
therefore, the respondent shall be entitled to get her regular
service counted for the period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for
the purpose of grant of the benefit of CAS. [Paras 6.2, 6.3][647-
H; 648-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8031
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2021 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1355 of 2019.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gaurav Agrawal, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim
Anvar, Abraham C. Mathews, Advs. for the Respondent.
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. v.
RINCYMOL MATHEW
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1355 of 2019 by which the Division Bench
of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.