Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 19-07-2018 in case of petitioner name University of Kerala & Anr. vs Saiful Islam A. & Ors.
| |

Supreme Court Modifies Kerala University Appointment Criteria for Reader Post

The case of University of Kerala & Anr. vs. Saiful Islam A. & Ors. revolves around the dispute regarding the experience requirement for appointment to the post of Reader. The key question before the Supreme Court was whether the experience required for this academic post should be counted before or after obtaining a Ph.D. degree, which was an essential qualification for the position.

Background of the Case

The University of Kerala had issued an appointment criterion stating that for an individual to be appointed as a Reader, they must have both a Ph.D. and a certain amount of teaching experience. However, the dispute arose as to whether the required experience should be considered before obtaining the Ph.D. or only after obtaining the Ph.D.

The matter was first contested in the Kerala High Court, where a Full Bench ruled that experience should be counted only after acquiring the Ph.D. qualification. This ruling had a significant impact on faculty members who had accumulated teaching experience prior to obtaining their Ph.D. and were seeking promotion or appointment as Readers.

The affected individuals, including Dr. Saiful Islam A. and Dr. A. Basheer, challenged the decision. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, both individuals had already retired from their positions.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners (University of Kerala & Others)

  • The University contended that the requirement for experience should apply only post-Ph.D., aligning with established academic recruitment norms.
  • It argued that allowing pre-Ph.D. experience would dilute the standards for appointing Readers.
  • The decision of the Kerala High Court, which stated that experience should be counted only after obtaining the Ph.D., was consistent with national academic policies.

Respondents (Dr. Saiful Islam A. & Others)

  • The respondents, including Dr. Saiful Islam A. and Dr. A. Basheer, argued that their prior teaching experience should be recognized for their appointments.
  • They emphasized that they had been serving in academic roles for several years and had acquired valuable teaching experience before completing their Ph.D.
  • The sudden change in interpretation disadvantaged faculty members who had invested years in teaching before obtaining their doctoral degrees.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the academic regulations and past legal precedents, making the following key observations:

  • The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court had correctly interpreted that the required experience should be post-Ph.D..
  • However, given the unique circumstances of the case and the fact that both appellants had already retired, it would be unjust to deny them the benefits they had accrued over the years.
  • Using its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court decided to provide a fair resolution to the dispute.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the Kerala High Court’s judgment and issued the following directives:

  • There shall be no recovery of any salary or pensionary benefits already granted to Dr. A. Basheer.
  • Dr. Saiful Islam A. shall be treated as having been appointed to the post of Reader with effect from June 1, 2012, for all service-related purposes.
  • His service and retirement benefits shall be settled accordingly.
  • The benefits due to Dr. Saiful Islam A. shall be disbursed within three months from the date of judgment.
  • Dr. Basheer shall be entitled to pension benefits as an Associate Professor with effect from February 13, 2015.
  • The financial benefits to both appellants shall be paid within three months.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for academic appointments in India:

  • It reinforces the standard that teaching experience for appointment to senior academic posts must be counted after obtaining a Ph.D..
  • However, in special cases where individuals have already served in academic roles and retired, the Supreme Court may provide relief to avoid undue hardship.
  • The judgment highlights the Court’s use of Article 142 to deliver equitable justice in exceptional cases.

The ruling serves as a benchmark for higher education institutions in interpreting faculty recruitment criteria while ensuring fairness in individual cases.


Petitioner Name: University of Kerala & Anr..
Respondent Name: Saiful Islam A. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Kerala, India.
Judgment Date: 19-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: University of Kerala vs Saiful Islam A. & Or Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-07-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts