SC Upholds Promotion Of Kerala Agricultural University Employee Leaving Question Of Law Open Regarding Validity Of His Distance Education Degree

The appellant worked as a Reference Assistant at Kerala Agricultural University and was later promoted to Assistant Librarian based on his qualifications, including an M.Phil in Library Science from Vinayak Missions University (VMU). However, the University's Academic Council, in a decision ruled that degrees obtained through Distance Education from VMU couldn't be considered for promotion under the University Grants Commission Scheme. This decision was endorsed by the Executive Council in 2014.

A two-judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “considering the fact that the appellant was granted promotion with effect from 23.07.2008 and continued working till he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018, in our opinion, the present appeals can be disposed of while leaving the question of law open but not disturbing the promotion already given to the appellant as he has already retired from service more than five years back.”

Advocate K. Rajeev appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Dushyant Manocha appeared for the Respondents.

The appellant faced action due to a complaint by respondent No. 1. Two Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court, one seeking to quash the decisions of the Academic Council and the Executive Council, and the other challenging the promotion of the appellant and another individual. The Single Judge of the High Court noted that the action was prompted by a complaint and directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders within a month. The appellant's petition was dismissed, and the Division Bench upheld this decision.

The issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the validity of the appellant's M.Phil degree from VMU.

Despite the contention that the degree was not valid, the Court observed that the appellant had been granted promotion from 2008 and had continued working until his retirement in 2018. The Court decided to dispose of the appeals without settling the legal question, ensuring that the promotion already given to the appellant would not be disturbed, considering he had retired over five years ago.

The Court ordered that the benefits granted to the appellant should not be disturbed.

Cause Title: Sebastian Dominic v. K. Harris & Ors., [2023 INSC 1041]

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR K. Rajeev

Respondents: Advocate Advocates Dushyant Manocha, Brian Henry Moses, Mrinalini Mishra, Chitra Vats, Doel Bose, Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, AOR Mritunjay Kumar Sinha and AOR Anannya Ghosh