Dr. Mool Singh Rathore vs State of Rajasthan and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—By these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the action of respondents in denying benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (for short "CAS") For convenience, the facts of the case of Dr. Mool Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 647/2011 are discussed in this judgment.

It is stated that University Grants Commission (for short "the UGC") framed a Scheme for Career Advancement of Lecturers working in the University. It was to remove stagnation, thereby promotion was provided by introducing Career Advancement Scheme (for short "CAS"). The Scheme originally framed underwent changes from time to time and it was finally superseded by the University Grants Commission (minimum qualification required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000. The Regulations provides benefit of career advancement in the senior scale and selection scale by giving designation of Associate Professor and Professor. As per Regulations, one is required to possess eight years'' of service as Reader (Associate Professor) along with various academic work and contribution to become eligible for promotion. The Clause 2.8 provides that if number of years required in the Feeder Cadre are less than stipulated, then to remove hardship of those who have complete more than total number of years in their entire service for eligibility in the cadre, may also be placed in the next higher cadre after adjusting the total number of years. The University amended Ordinance 317(B) to implement Regulations of 2000 and for that purposes. Notification was issued on 07.09.2001. The respondent-University, however, failed to implement CAS at the level of Assistant Professor and at the same time, proposed amendment in the Ordinance 317 (B) to make it effective since 01.03.2002. The respondent initiated process for promotion to the post of Professor and Associate Professor vide order dt. 07.04.2010. The UGC in the meanwhile amended their Regulations on 18.09.2010. The amended provisions were to the effect that if a candidate become eligible for promotion in terms of Regulations on or after 31.12.2008, promotion of such candidate shall be governed by the amended regulations. The petitioners submitted their candidature for promotion through proper channel. The respondents thereafter notified dates of interview and in the meanwhile, meeting of Academic Council took place on 08.01.2011 to consider proposed draft for amendment in the Ordinance 317(B) in connection with qualification for promotion under CAS. The proposed Ordinance was made applicable for those, who become eligible on or after 31.12.2008. The petitioners were assured for consideration of candidature after taking total length of service but they were shocked to receive a letter dt. 16.01.2011 informing about deficiencies in their candidature. The aforesaid seems to be pursuant to the proposed amendment in Ordinance otherwise petitioners had completed their required length of service. This Court passed an interim order, accordingly petitioners appeared in the interview. On completion of interview, it was found that as many as 42 candidates have been promoted based on their entire length of service though they had not completed eight years'' of service as Reader, thereby respondents made discrimination between similarly situated persons. If a candidate lacking in eight years'' of service as Reader can be held qualified for CAS then respondents were expected to give similar treatment to others including petitioners. The prayer is accordingly to treat the petitioners as qualified by considering their total length of service. So far as other issues pertaining to disqualification are concerned, that are not required to be addressed now, as candidature of the petitioners has already been considered, thus it would be adjudged as per CAS.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that petitioner, namely, Mool Singh Rathore was initially appointed on the post of Assistant. Professor. He was promoted to the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 19.05.2001 under Career Advancement Scheme, thus next promotion under said Scheme would be available to him but strictly as per the Regulations framed by the UGC and amended Ordinance of University. The UGC issued a letter dt. 21.02.2002 informing modification in the process for promotion of Associate Professor to the post of Professor under the Scheme, It was made applicable w.e.f. 01.03.2002 and direction was also issued for its adherence. As per the aforesaid letter, eight years'' experience was required on the post of Reader apart from other conditions. The UGC subsequently issued another letter on 08.07.2003 informing all the Vice Chancellors that research publication for promotion to the post of Professor should be of the period of Associate Professor. Thus, prior publications were not to be considered. The UGC thereafter amended its Regulations of the year 2010, accordingly the University took a decision to amend its Ordinance and thereupon issued a Notification on 13.02.2011. The Ordinance now notified after amendment is to be made applicable for those, who become eligible for promotion after 01.03.2002. Even otherwise amended Regulations notified by the UGC is made applicable for promotion on or after 31.12.2008, thus those candidates, who become eligible for promotion on or after 31.12.2008 were required to be governed by the amended Regulations of 2010. The petitioners were accordingly conveyed deficiencies in their candidature. The University has further proposed an amendment in the Ordinance, however, assent of Chancellor has not been received as yet. In any case, the respondents will give promotion to all the eligible candidates by one and the same criteria. This is taking note of allegation that 42 candidates have been given promotion though lacking in length of service. The petitioners have pressed main controversy regarding their eligibility in terms of length of service, as other issues have not been pressed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

At the time of filing of writ petitions, controversy was raised in regard to various disqualification/deficiencies pointed-out in regard to the qualification of petitioners for their promotion under CAS. The petitioners were, however, allowed to appear in the interview on provisional basis by an interim order. In the aforesaid background, main issue pressed before this Court is as to what would be required length of service to become eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under CAS. Referring to the Regulations of 2000, it is submitted that one needs to possess eight years of service as Reader, however, Clause 2.8 provides for relaxation. The provisions pertaining to Reader and Professor are provided at Clause Nos. 2.4 to 2.8 of Regulations of 2000, it would be gainful to quote aforesaid Clauses for ready reference:

2.4.0 Reader (Promotion)

2.4.1. A Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader if she/he has:

(i) Completed 5 years of service in the Senior Scale;

(ii) Obtained a Ph.D. Degree or has equivalent published work;

(iii) Made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced e.g. by self assessment, report of referees, quality of publication, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula and extension activities,

(iv) After placement in the Senior Scale participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes of approved duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the University Grants Commission, and

(v) possesses consistently good performance appraisal reports.

2.4.2 Promotion to the Post of Reader will be through a process of selection by a Selection Committee to be set up under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned University or other similar Committees set up by the appointing authorities.

2.5.0 PROFESSOR (PROMOTION)

In addition to the sanctioned position of professors, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader.

2.6.0 The Selection Committee for promotion to the post of professor should be the same as that for direct recruitment. For the promotion from Reader to Professor, the following method of promotion may be followed:

The candidate should present herself/himself before the Selection Committee with some of the following:

a) Self-appraisal reports (required).

b) Research contribution/books/articles published.

c) Any other academic contributions.

The best three written contributions of the teacher (as defined by her/him) may be sent in advance to the Experts to review before coming for the selection. The candidate should be asked to submit these in 3 sets with the application.

d) Seminars/Conferences attended.

e) Contribution to teaching/academic environment/Institutional corporate life.

f) Extension and field outreach activities.

2.7.0 The requirement of participation in orientation/refresher courses/summer institutes, each of at least 3 to 4 weeks duration, and consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports, shall be the mandatory requirement for Career Advancement from Lecturer (Senior Scale) and from Lecturer (Senior Scale) to Lecturer (Selection Grade), wherever the requirement of orientation / refresher course has remained incomplete, the promotions would not be held up but these must be completed by the year 2000.

The requirement for completing these courses would be as follows:

(i) For Lecturer (Senior Scale), one orientation course would be compulsory for University and College teachers. Those without Ph.D. would be required to do one refresher course in addition.

(ii) Two refresher courses for Lecturer (Senior Scale) to Lecturer (Selection Grade).

(iii) The senior teachers like Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) and Professors may opt to attend two Seminars/Conferences in their subject area and present papers as one aspect of their promotion/selection to higher level or attend refresher courses to be offered by ASCs for this level.

2.8.0 If the number of years required in a feeder cadre are less than those stipulated in this notification, thus entailing hardship to those who have completed more than the total number of years in their entire service for eligibility in the cadre, may be placed in the next higher cadre after adjusting the total number of years.

This situation is like to arise as in the earlier scheme, the number of years required in a feeder cadre were much more than those envisaged under this notification.

Perusal of Regulations shows that for promotion to the post of Reader, one needs to have five years service in senior scale. So far as promotion to the post of Professor is concerned, one needs to have eight years'' of service as a Reader. It is apart from other qualification; however, present writ is pressed on the issue of length of service only.

Regulation 2.6 provides as to what would be required qualification for promotion and similarly, Regulation 2.7 also provides certain conditions. Regulation 2.8 is material because same has been referred by the petitioners in specific terms. The aforesaid Regulation provides that if number of years required in a Feeder Cadre are less than those stipulated in this Notification, resulting in hardship to those, who have completed more than the total numbers of years in their entire service for eligibility in the Cadre may be placed in the next higher cadre after adjudging total number of years.

According to petitioners, if total number of years of their service are taken into consideration then they are eligible for promotion. It is emphatically stated that 42 candidates have been adjudged qualified by the said provisions, It is also settled law that statutory provisions cannot be nullified by an administrative order. The amendment in the Ordinance vide Notification dt. 07.09.2001 also provides requirement of eight years service as Reader (Associate Professor for promotion to the post of Professor) but therein also, provision is made for those, who have not completed eight years as required. For ready reference Ordinance 317(1)(B) is quoted hereunder:--

Ordinance 317 (1) (B) PROFESSOR (PROMOTION)

In addition to the sanctioned position of Professors, which must filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Associate Professor (Reader), selected or promoted.

OR

If the number of years required in a feeder cadre are less than 8 years (those stipulated in UGC notifications) thus, entailing hardship to those who have completed more than the total number of years in their entire service for eligibility in the cadre, then after adjusting the total number of years of service, such teacher will be eligible for promotion to the post of Professor.

Perusal of aforesaid reveals that on what condition, one would be eligible for promotion. The respondents, however, referred to a letter dt. 21.02.2002 issued by the UGC at Annexure--R/2 to indicate that requirement of eight years'' experience as Reader cannot be nullified but it cannot be read against the Regulation 2.8 and Ordinance 317(B) being statutory in nature.

I find that aforesaid letter cannot be read in isolation but it has to be in reference to the Regulation of 2000 and amended Ordinance 317(1)(B), which seems to have been used by the respondents by permitting 42 such candidates, who have not completed required length of service. Even if the Notification dt. 13.02.2011 amending Ordinance 317(B) is looked into, it contains similar provision in terms of eligibility period. For ready reference, amended provisions in Ordinance 317(B) is also quoted hereunder:.

Ordinance 317 (B) Professor (Promotion)

In addition to the sanctioned position of Professors, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Associate Professor (Reader) selected or promoted.

OR

If the number of years required in a feeder cadre are less than 8 years (those stipulated in UGC notification) thus, entailing hardship to those who have competed more than the total number of years in their entire service for eligibility in the cadre, then after adjusting the total number of years of service, such teacher will be eligible for promotion to the post of Professor.

In the light of the aforesaid, letter dt. 16.01.2011 indicating that petitioner Mool Singh Rathore is lacking in total length of service, as per proposed Ordinance goes against existing Ordinance. In any case, both the learned counsel have agreed for a direction to adjudge eligibility of petitioners with the same parameters as applied for those, who have been considered for CAS. The prayer for petitioners was in reference to 42 candidates, who are similarly placed like the petitioners..

In view of aforesaid, controversy raised in the present matters comes in narrow compass, rather petitions are disposed off with the following directions:--

(i) The promotion under Career Advancement Scheme should be made by applying one and same yardstick for all candidates thereby no discrimination should be made between similarly placed candidates. If respondents have considered same Associate Professors for promotion to the post of Professor though they are lacking in eight years'' service as Associate Professor then it goes without reasons as to why petitioners have not been given same treatment. The respondents are directed not to make discrimination, accordingly if any candidate has been adjudged eligible despite lacking in total length of service on the post of Associate Professor (Reader) then petitioners may also be treated as eligible on that count.

(ii) The petitioners have already been interviewed pursuant to an interim order of this Court, thus if direction issued at Item No. 1 goes favourable to them then their result may be opened and if they are recommended for promotion, it may be given effect with consequential benefits.

With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed off.