Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirement for Reader Post: University of Kerala vs. Saiful Islam (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 19 July 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can prior work experience before obtaining a Ph.D. be considered for a Reader position, where a Ph.D. is mandatory? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a case involving the University of Kerala. The core issue was whether the required experience for the post of Reader should be before or after acquiring a Ph.D. degree. The court’s decision impacts the service benefits and pension of the involved parties. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointment of Readers at the University of Kerala. The central dispute was whether the experience required for the post of Reader should be before or after obtaining a Ph.D., which is an essential qualification for the position. The case involves two individuals, Dr. Saiful Islam A. and Dr. A. Basheer, both of whom were appointed as Readers. The High Court of Kerala had ruled that the experience should be after acquiring the Ph.D. The Supreme Court was approached to settle this dispute.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala had ruled that the experience for the post of Reader should be after the acquisition of Ph.D. However, during the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, both Dr. Saiful Islam A. and Dr. A. Basheer retired from their services. This led the Supreme Court to invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice in the matter.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice in this case. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it. The court used this power to address the unique circumstances arising from the retirement of the involved parties during the pendency of the appeals.

Arguments

The judgment does not detail specific arguments made by either side. The Supreme Court primarily focused on the fact that the involved parties had retired during the pendency of the appeals. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, rather than addressing the merits of the arguments regarding pre- or post-Ph.D. experience.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues for consideration. Instead, the court focused on the intervening developments, specifically the retirement of the involved parties, and invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific authorities or legal precedents in this judgment. The decision was primarily based on the court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice in the given circumstances.

Judgment

The Court did not discuss any authorities in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor influencing the Court’s decision was the need to ensure complete justice, given that both Dr. Saiful Islam A. and Dr. A. Basheer had retired during the pendency of the appeals. The Court prioritized resolving the practical implications of the situation, particularly concerning their service and pension benefits.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to address the practical consequences of the retirements. The Court did not engage with the substantive legal question of whether experience should be pre- or post-Ph.D. Instead, it used its powers under Article 142 to provide a just and equitable resolution.

Key Takeaways

• No recovery of pay or pensionary benefits from Dr. Basheer.
• Dr. Saiful Islam A. is considered to have been appointed to the post of Reader with effect from 01.06.2012 for all purposes.
• Dr. Basheer is entitled to pension with effect from 13.02.2015 as Associate Professor.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The benefits due to Dr. Saiful Islam A. shall be settled and disbursed within three months from the date of the judgment.
• The benefits due to Dr. Basheer shall be disbursed within three months from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, especially in cases where intervening events like retirement occur during the pendency of appeals. The judgment modifies the High Court’s decision to the extent of ensuring that the service and pension benefits of the involved parties are addressed. The Court did not make any pronouncement on the question of whether experience should be pre- or post-Ph.D. Thus, there is no change in the previous position of law on this legal issue.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court of Kerala to ensure complete justice for Dr. Saiful Islam A. and Dr. A. Basheer, who had retired during the pendency of the appeals. The court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to provide specific directions regarding their service and pension benefits. The court did not address the substantive issue of whether the experience required for the post of Reader should be pre-Ph.D. or post-Ph.D.

Category

✓ Service Law
✓ Appointment of Reader
✓ Retirement Benefits
✓ Constitution of India
✓ Article 142, Constitution of India
✓ University of Kerala

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the University of Kerala case?

A: The main issue was whether the experience required for the post of Reader should be before or after obtaining a Ph.D., which is an essential qualification for the position.

Q: How did the Supreme Court resolve the issue?

A: The Supreme Court did not directly address the issue on its merits. Instead, it invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, given that both involved parties had retired during the pendency of the appeals.

Q: What is Article 142 of the Constitution?

A: Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it.

Q: What were the key directions given by the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court directed that there would be no recovery of pay or pensionary benefits from Dr. Basheer. Dr. Saiful Islam A. was to be treated as appointed to the post of Reader from 01.06.2012, and Dr. Basheer was entitled to pension as Associate Professor from 13.02.2015.

Q: Did the Supreme Court set a precedent on whether experience should be pre- or post-Ph.D.?

A: No, the Supreme Court did not make any pronouncement on the question of whether experience should be pre- or post-Ph.D. The decision was based on the need to ensure complete justice in the given circumstances.