Dr. A. Alice vs University Grants Commission and Bharathidasan University

P. Jyothimani, J.—Since a common issue is involved, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this

Common Order.

These Writ Petitions relate to non - conferment of benefit of promotion to the Petitioners herein, who are holding the post of Readers, as

Professors under the Career Advancement Scheme by the University Grants Commission.

The University Grants Commission, as per its scheme, has formulated the said Career Advancement Scheme so as to enable the persons,

holding the post of Readers in various departments, who have No. further avenue of promotion, and therefore, there is a stagnation in promotion,

to get the eligibility for consideration for further promotion and under the above said scheme, promotion is granted by way of Career Advancement

Scheme after completion of eight years. By virtue of the above said Career Advancement Scheme formulated by the University Grants

Commission, the substantive post held by the teachers as Readers will remain vacant and notional promotion is given to such persons as Professors

who will get the benefit of post of Professors, both monetary and otherwise. The said scheme has been accepted by the Government and the

Government has also issued G.O.Ms. No. 112, Higher Education (H1) Department, dated 24.03.1999. While incorporating the scheme of the

University Grants Commission and while speaking about the Career Advancement Scheme, the Government of Tamil Nadu has clearly stated in

the said Government Order that a Reader with a minimum of eight years of service will be eligible for consideration for appointment as a Professor

under the scheme and the University Grants Commission, while considering the modification in the procedure for promotion of Reader to the post

of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme in University Departments, has clearly stated that promotion given to a Reader to that of a

Professor under the scheme is purely personal in nature and in the letter dated 21.02.2002, the University Grants Commission has indicated the

following criteria, which reads as follows:

that the promotion from Reader to Professor under CAS being a personal position and not against a sanctioned post, the teaching work-load of

the Reader be carried forward with him/her and be undertaken by the promotee even in the capacity of the CAS Professor

Now, coming to the facts of the case, the Petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 7392 of 2006 has joined as a Lecturer in Bharathidasan University,

which is the fourth Respondent herein, on 12.04.1989 and was promoted as a Reader on 12.04.1995. He was eligible to be considered under the

scheme for the post of Professor on completion of eight years of service viz., from 12.04.2003. Likewise, the Petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 7393

of 2006 has joined in the fourth Respondent -University as a Lecturer on 08.11.1989 and he was eligible to be considered under the scheme for

the post of Professor on 08.11.2003. Similarly, the Petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 7394 of 2006, who was originally appointed as a Lecturer in the

fourth Respondent -University on 19.10.1989, was promoted as a Reader on 19.10.1995, and therefore, as per the scheme, he was eligible to be

considered for promotion to the post of Professor on 19.10.2003. The Petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 7395 of 2006 has joined as a Lecturer on

03.04.1989 and was promoted as a Reader on 03.04.1995 and he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor under the

scheme on 03.04.2003.

The fourth Respondent -University, in accordance with the above said scheme of the University Grants Commission, has conducted its second

interview on 07.04.2003 for the purpose of recommending the candidates for the post of Professor under the scheme for approval to the

University Grants Commission. Admittedly, as it is seen from the records, except in respect of the Petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 7395 of 2006, all

other three Petitioners were not eligible for consideration on the date of the interview conducted by the fourth Respondent -University, since they

have not completed eight years of service as Readers. However, it appears that the fourth Respondent - University, taking note of the fact that

there is only a few days or months time for completion of eight years of service and also under the impression that by the time the University Grants

Commission gives approval, the period of eight years would be completed, has recommended the names of four persons along with three other

persons for conferring the benefit of treating them as Professors under the scheme.

It was in those circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioners have not completed the required period of service as Readers, the

University Grants Commission has rejected the proposals sent by the fourth Respondent -University. Thereafter, the fourth Respondent -University

has conducted the third interview on 02.03.2005. By that time, admittedly, all the Petitioners had been qualified to be considered for the said post

under the scheme and in the third interview conducted by the university on 02.03.2005, the fourth Respondent -University has again recommended

the names of the Petitioners for the purpose of conferment of the benefit of the scheme and sent proposal for approval to the University Grants

Commission. However, the University Grants Commission, by its letter dated 05.04.2005, while rejecting the recommendations made by the

fourth Respondent -University in respect of the Petitioners along with three other persons for the purpose of conferring the benefit of

Professorships from the date of completion of eight years from the date of appointment as Readers, confined the said benefits from the date of

interview only, viz., 02.03.2005.

In the said rejection order dated 05.04.2005, the University Grants Commission has taken a stand that in respect of these Petitioners, their

claim, based on the interview conducted on 07.04.2003 was already rejected, and therefore, their consideration subsequently by the fourth

Respondent -University on 02.03.2005 does not confer any right on them. Thereafter, the Petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 7392 of 2006 has made a

representation on 20.09.2005 to the first Respondent and the Petitioners in W.P.(MD). Nos. 7393 to 7395 of 2006 have made representations

on 14.09.2005 bringing to the notice of the University Grants Commission that the University Grants Commission itself, in respect of a few of the

cases, has accepted that a person, who has completed eight years of service as Readers, will be given the benefit of Professorship from the date of

completion of eight years of service and not from the date of conducting of interview. Therefore, the Petitioners have requested the University

Grants Commission to reconsider its order dated 05.04.2005 and confer the benefit of Professorship from the date of completion of eight years of

service as Readers, which is the eligibility criterion, instead of giving the benefit from the date of conducting of interview, viz., 02.03.2005.

However, the University Grants Commission, rejecting the said request of the Petitioners, has passed the impugned orders in December 2005

stating that the order already passed on 05.04.2005 holds good.

In these circumstances, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions challenging the impugned orders of the University Grants

Commission mainly on the ground that there has been an arbitrary discrimination in the conduct of the University Grants Commission in effecting

promotion and also on the ground that as per the scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission, when once the Petitioners complete the

required period of service, they get rights to be considered for the next post either as Professors or Readers whatever it is and that cannot be

postponed to a subsequent date, simply because the interview was conducted by the concerned university on a later date. It may be true that the

conduct of the interview by the University concerned on a later date is depending upon the convenience of the university and that can never deprive

the right which has already been conferred on a teacher under the scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission on fulfilling the eligibility

criterion. While the fourth Respondent - University has supported the stand of the Petitioners since it was the university which has conducted the

interview and taken a stand that when the eligible criterion is fulfilled, the teachers are to be given the benefit and inasmuch as the University Grants

Commission has given approval in respect of three teachers belonging to the same university, the University Grants Commission has to approve the

proposals sent by the University for granting the benefit of Professorship under the scheme on completion of eligibility criteria.

The University Grants Commission has filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, though it is stated by the University Grants

Commission that it is true that the University Grants Commission has formulated the scheme for the purpose of providing promotion to the

teachers, who are stagnated in their services, it has taken a stand that the eligibility criterion is only a minimum requirement for consideration and

that will not confer any right on any person, simply because the period of experience under the scheme, has been completed. It is also stated in the

counter affidavit that originally, when the fourth Respondent -University has conducted the interview for the second time on 07.04.2003, the

Petitioners were not qualified, and therefore, the proposals sent by the fourth Respondent -University came to be rejected. While so, the fourth

Respondent -University has conducted the next interview only on 02.03.2005 and between the said periods i.e., 07.04.2003 and 02.03.2005, if

the Petitioners had attained the requirement for consideration, it does not mean that they should be given promotion from that date and such

promotion can be given, only when it was considered by the fourth Respondent -University on 02.03.2005, and therefore, the University Grants

Commission has supported its decision.

The main contention of Mr. K.Govindarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that when the University Grants Commission, in

respect of other teachers of the same university, has conferred the benefit from the date of completion of eight years of service as Readers to the

post of Professorship, the denial of such right to the Petitioners, without any valid reason, is arbitrary. The next ground based on which the claim of

the Petitioners was rejected is that earlier, the fourth Respondent -University has considered the claim of the Petitioners, at which time, they have

not fulfilled the eligibility criteria and that cannot be put against them. There was No. fault on the part of the Petitioners and it is not the case of

suppression of any material fact so as to make them ineligible for the equitable remedy, which is being given in the Career Advancement Scheme

by the University Grants Scheme, and therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, it is a matter of right and when once the

Readers, on completion of eight years of service, have to be considered for promotion as Professors, if that consideration has been postponed by

the Appointing Authority, that cannot be put against them and right has to be given from the date of fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent - University Grants Commission that under the

modification issued by the University Grants Commission to the scheme in the meeting held on 18.01.2002, which was notified on 21.02.2002,

while reiterating that the minimum eight years of service as a Reader is an eligibility criterion to consider a person as Professor under the Career

Advancement Scheme in the university department, in the modification issued, it has been clearly stated that after rejection of a candidate once, he

can be considered only after one year. He has specifically relied upon the following portion of the letter of the University Grants Commission dated

21.02.2002, which reads as follows:

that repeat process of promotion/interview for the rejected candidates can be conducted only after a minimum period of one year from the date of

promotion process/interview in which the candidate was rejected.

According to the learned Counsel for the first Respondent-University Grants Commission, inasmuch as the claim of the Petitioners has been

rejected as early as in the year 2003 and the same has to be considered under the modified scheme after completion of one year, necessarily,

when the university has subsequently considered in the interview held on 02.03.2005, the Petitioners should be eligible only from that date of

consideration. According to him, by virtue of the above modification, the Petitioners lose their right.

I have considered the above rival submissions made by the respective learned Counsel and given my anxious thought to the issue involved in

these cases.

It is not in dispute, as it is seen from the letter of the University Grants Commission dated 05.04.2005 that in respect of three teachers, who

happen to be the Readers in the university department, they were given promotion to the post of Professors from the date when they completed

eight years of service as Readers. In fact, in the said letter dated 05.04.2005, the University Grants Commission has stated as follows:-

The factual position, was that out of ten, 3 teachers namely (1) Dr. S.Aruchamy, Department of Geography, (2) Dr. M.Manivel, Department of

Geology and (3) Dr. T.K.Swatantra Devi, Department of Education Technology, may be given promotion w.e.f 27.07.1998 or date of eligibility,

which ever is later,

In the said letter, the University Grants Commission has also made it very clear that in respect of those three teachers, viz., (1) Dr.

S.Aruchamy, Department of Geography, (2) Dr. M.Manivel, Department of Geology and (3) Dr. T.K.Swatantra Devi, Department of Education

Technology, they were given promotion as Professors with effect from 27.07.1998, which is stated to be the date, on which the said candidates

have completed eight years of service as Readers. However, while considering the claim of seven others, in the same letter, the University Grants

Commission has taken a different stand stating that they are eligible to be considered for promotion only from the date of conducting the interview

by the university. In the relevant portion of the said letter dated 05.04.2005, the University Grants Commission has stated as follows:

Rest of the seven teachers viz., (1) Dr. Aru Marudhadurai, (2) Dr. A.Alice, Department of Tamil, (3) Dr. M.Krishnan Department of Eco -

Biotechnology, (4). Dr. P.Geraldine Veronica Vimla Rani, (5).Dr.Chellam Balasundaram, Department of Animal Science, (6).Dr.M.V.Rao, and

(7) Dr. N.Jayabalan, Department of Plant Science may be given promotion from the date of interview i.e., 02.03.2005, as they were earlier

rejected by the Selection Committee at its last meeting held on 07.04.2003.

The only distinction, which is sought to be made by the University Grants Commission between the above said two sets of candidates is that in

respect of the Petitioners, their claim, which was recommended by the University in the interview held on 07.04.2003, was rejected, and therefore,

they are not comparable to other three candidates, and so, according to the learned Counsel for the University Grants Commission, the eligibility of

the Petitioners can be considered only from the subsequent interview conducted by the university, which was on 02.03.2005, even though in

between 07.04.2003 and 02.03.2005, the Petitioners have fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as per the scheme formulated by the University Grants

Commission.

When the Petitioners have specifically raised the point that there has been an arbitrary discrimination in the conduct of the University Grants

Commission in giving benefits, which were given to the similarly placed persons, the counter affidavit filed by the University Grants Commission has

not chosen to speak about the same. The reason for denying such right and differentiating the Petitioners appears to be that the university on an

earlier occasion, in its meeting held on 07.04.2003, has considered the claim of the Petitioners, at which time, the Petitioners have not fulfilled the

eligibility criterion and that cannot be put against them.

In my considered opinion, when there was No. fault on the part of the Petitioners and when it is not the case of suppression of any material fact

so as to make them ineligible for the equitable remedy, which is being given in the Career Advancement Scheme by the University Grants Scheme,

I have No. hesitation to hold that the act of the University Grants Commission is totally arbitrary. The rejection of the claim of the Petitioners on an

earlier occasion is totally because of the conduct of the university, which can never be attributed to the Petitioners at all. The fourth Respondent -

University, while conducting the interview on 07.04.2003 ought not to have considered the case of the Petitioners at least in respect of three of

them, who have not completed eight years of service as Readers. Nevertheless, the fourth Respondent -University has recommended the names of

four persons along with three other persons on the belief that by the time, the University Grants Commission gives approval, the Petitioners would

have fulfilled the eligibility criteria. But, that cannot be a ground for the purpose of depriving their right of being considered for the next post of

Professorship under the Career Advancement Scheme on their completion of eight years of service as Readers.

That apart, there are No. reasons adduced for postponing the benefit from the date of fulfillment of eligibility criteria to the date of conduct of

interview. Though it is true that the conducting of the interview by the University concerned on a later date is depending upon the convenience of

the university, in my considered opinion, the same cannot take away the right of the Petitioners, which has been given under the scheme formulated

by the University Grants Commission on fulfilment of the eligibility criteria. The scheme is intended for the purpose that there shall not be any

stagnation in promotion among the teachers who are working in the university departments. In such view of the matter, in my considered opinion,

the scheme should be treated as a beneficial scheme. The contention of the learned Counsel that once the claim of the Petitioners has been

rejected, the claim of the Petitioners can be considered only after one year is not going to give any change in the scheme, since, after 07.04.2003,

the fourth Respondent - University has conducted the interview only on 02.03.2005 and that does not mean that the date of conducting the

interview is the eligibility criterion. In any event, since in the meantime, the Petitioners have fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as per the scheme of the

University Grants Commission, they are, certainly, entitled to be conferred on such benefits from the date of completion of eight years of

experience as Readers.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the University Grants Commission dated December 2005 as well as its earlier order

dated 05.04.2005, insofar as they relate to rejection of the claim of the Petitioners from the date of completion of eight years of service as Readers

stand set aside and the Writ Petitions stand allowed. The University Grants Commission is directed to pass fresh orders granting approval for the

purpose of conferment of benefit of the scheme on the Petitioners herein from the date of completion of eight years of service from the date of their

respective appointments as Readers within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No. costs. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.