Issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is eligible to get two advance increments based on implementation of the UGC Scheme. 2. The petitioner is working as Selection Grade Lecturer in TKM College of Arts and Science, Kollan in the subject of Chemistry. She was appointed as a lecturer in the subject concerned, with effect from 16.11.1984. She was granted Senior Scale on 31.1.1997 and Selection Grade on 30.1.2000. The petitioner acquired qualification of Ph.D from the 1st respondent University on 31.12.2001. Ext.P1 is the extract of the Government Order through which UGC Scheme with respect to revision of scale of pay of teachers was implemented by the Government. Clause 6.18 of Ext.P1 Government Order stipulates that a Lecturer with Ph.D will be eligible for two advance increments, when she/he moves into the selection Grade/Reader. The claim of the petitioner in this regard was declined by the 2nd respondent through Ext.P2 letter stating the reason that the eligibility for advance increments will be restricted only with respect to those who acquire Ph.D in the relevant subject. Since the petitioner obtained Ph.D in the subject of 'Education', she is not eligible for the advance increments, is the findings. On receipt of Ext.P2 the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent, pointing out certain instances where other teachers were granted with the benefit on acquiring Ph.D in subjects other than their relevant subjects. Evidently the 2nd respondent had called for report from the 1st respondent University and Ext.P5 letter was issued stating that, as per the Government Order implementing the revised scale of pay under the UGC Scheme, it is necessary to consider the claim for advance increments on the basis that the petitioner had acquired Ph.D qualification. This writ petition is filed on the premise that, despite Ext.P4 request and P5 recommendations made by the 1st respondent University, no decision is taken by the 2nd respondent.
3. Admittedly the petitioner is working as Selection Grade Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry. She had acquired qualification of Ph.D in the subject of 'Education'. Dispute is as to whether she will be entitled for the incentive declared under Ext.P1, especially the one which contained under Clause 6.18. It is true that the relevant clause does not insist upon that acquisition of Ph.D should be in the relevant subject itself. But from Ext.P3 it is evident that Government had issued a subsequent clarification to the effect that Ph.D or M.Phil qualification should be in the relevant subject itself, for granting benefits under the UGC Scheme.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as long as there is no insistence in Ext.P1 Government Order to the effect that the Ph.D should be acquired in the same subject itself, the clarification contained under Ext.P3 cannot operate against the petitioner. Further it is pointed out that, in a subsequent Government Order issued in the year 2000, the relevant clause was amended specifying that the incentives with respect to Ph.D will be awarded only in the relevant discipline itself. Since the petitioner had acquired qualification of Ph.D and moved into the Selection Grade at a time when Ext.P1 was in force, and since Ext.P1 does not insist upon that the acquisition of Ph.D should be in the relevant subject itself, there is no justification for denial of the benefits, is the contention.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that there existed no Government Order to grant incentive to a teacher who acquire Ph.D in a different discipline. It is further contended that the University had issued a clarification in this regard on 18.9.2009 stating that the Ph.D qualification acquired by the petitioner in the subject of 'Education' cannot be considered as the relevant subject.
6. There cannot be any dispute that the eligibility of the petitioner should have been considered on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order, because the acquisition of Ph.D qualification and the acquisition of Selection Grade was during the time when Ext.P1 order in force. Fact that the relevant provisions in Ext.P1 does not insist that the acquisition of Ph.D should be in the same discipline, is also not dispute. Can the petitioner be denied the benefit based on a subsequent clarification issued, is the relevant question. So also it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that acquisition of Ph.D in the subject of 'Education' will definitely help in advancement of the petitioners career as Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry. This court is of the considered opinion that this is a matter which need to be looked into by the Government, taking note of the observations contained herein above. The Government should specifically consider the fact as to whether the petitioner is eligible for the advance increments based on Ext.P1. It shall also be considered as to whether acquisition of Ph.D in the subject of 'Education' will provide advancement/betterment of career of the petitioner as Lecturer, making her eligible for the advance increments as contemplated under Ext.P1.
7. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the Government addressed to the Secretary to the Government Higher Education Department, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Government shall consider admissibility of the claim for grant of advance increments with reference to the observations contained herein above, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. An appropriate decision with respect to eligibility of the petitioner for the advance increment shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
/True Copy/ SKV P.A. To Judge