Skip to main content

UGC Regulations are mandatory rules Full Bench of Kerala High Court

A Full bench of the Kerala High Court in Dr D.Radhakrishna Pillai v State of Kerala and others [W.P.(C) 17148/13] and various other connected cases thereto, has ruled in affirmative that Regulations prescribed by University Grants Commission (UGC) for appointment to the posts of principles and teachers in various universities and affiliated colleges have to be mandatorily followed. The Full Bench overruled a verdict of a division bench as in S.N. College vs. N. Raveendran decided on 24 October, 2001 which held UGC Regulations,1998 would not apply in the absence of any amendments to the university first statutes/byelaws. The matters were referred to a larger bench after a Single bench expressed doubt whether the ruling of the Division Bench in Raveendran’s case laid down a correct law, in view of numerous rulings by apex court which had upheld the validity of UGC norms and regulations. The Full Bench comprising of Justice Antony Dominic, Justice A.Hariprasad, and Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar answered with reference to the provisions of the UGC Act, the University Act and Articles 245 & 254 of the Constitution of India, held that in the event of a conflict, UGC Act and Regulations would prevail over  the University Act, and statutes enacted under Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution of India. The bench hence observed that any appointment to the post of principles and teachers in the state made after adoption of UGC norms by the State Government w.e.f from September 18, 2010 have to be in strict adherence with the said norms and any appointments made in contravention of the same are illegal. It was further opined that U.G.C norms have to be followed strictly; disregarding the fact whether university acts or statutes have been amended in tune with U.G.C regulations or not. The Full bench answered the reference in the following lines:- “Irrespective of whether the University Acts enacted under Entry 25 of list III or the Statutes framed there under are amended in line with the UGC Regulations or not, in view of its adoption by the State of Kerala with effect from 18.9.2010 as per Government Order dated 10.12.2010, the Universities and affiliated colleges in Kerala State are bound to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010.Viewed in that manner, the natural consequence is that the principles laid down by this Court in Raveendran’s case cannot be sustained and is overruled”. The verdict of the Full Bench is viewed to have a wider impact across the State, as all appointments to the posts of principles and teachers to various universities and colleges made after September 18,2010 shall now have to be scrutinized and subject matter of various litigations to ascertain whether those confirm to U.G.C Regulations,2010 .

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a