Dr. Pon Subbiah vs Union of India and Others

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order dated 27.2.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in O.A. No. 369/2009 is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order the petitioner''s prayer to quash the revised seniority list of Professors/Deputy Directors of Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, (for short ''the CIIL'') as on 1.7.2005 is rejected. Consequently the Tribunal has refused to quash the order issued in favour of the 5th respondent by the 3rd respondent relating to entrustment of additional charge of CIIL, Mysore, and also the other consequential reliefs sought for by the petitioner are rejected. The records reveal that the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are working in CIIL, Mysore, which comes under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by direct recruitment vide order dated 24.6.1980 in CIIL, Mysore, by the respondents. Subsequently, he was appointed as Reader-cum-Research Officer by the order dated 17.8.1984 by Government of India on recommendation of Union Public Service Commission (for short ''the UPSC''). The said appointment to the post of Reader is by direct recruitment in terms of Cadre and Recruitment Rules relating to CIIL and its Regional Languages Center.

Recruitment to certain posts of CIIL and its Regional Centers is governed by rules called "Central Institute of Indian Languages and its Regional Languages Centers (Group A and Group B posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987. The Professor-cum-Deputy Director''s post is to be filled up by direct recruitment only, as is clear from the said rules; so also the post of Reader-cum-Research Officer/Principal also should be filled up by direct recruitment in consultation with UPSC. Even the post of Lecturer-cum-Junior Research Officer shall be filled by direct recruitment. Thus it is clear all the posts such as Lecturer, Reader and Professor shall be filled up by direct recruitment only under the relevant Rules of CIIL, Mysore. The petitioner was recruited and appointed to the post of Lecturer and subsequently to the post of Reader, pursuant to the said rules.

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed as professors through direct recruitment on the recommendation of UPSC on 26.5.2003 and 16.7.2003 respectively. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were earlier working as Readers and Lecturers in some other Language Institutions. However, they were appointed as Professors on the recommendation of UPSC by direct recruitment at CIIL, Mysore. From the date of their appointment, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were working as Professors at CIIL, Mysore.

When the facts stood thus, a common seniority list was prepared by the Institute as per Annexure-A17 filed along with the application O.A. No. 369/2009 before CAT. In the said common seniority list, petitioner''s name is placed at Sl. No. 3 whereas the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are placed at Sl. Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. The institute having come to know the mistake crept in the common seniority list and as the said common seniority list was not prepared pursuant to the Official Memorandum dated 3.7.1986, the revised seniority list was issued as per Annexure A-19 (produced along with the O.A. before the CAT). In the revised seniority list, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein were placed at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Being aggrieved by such revised seniority list the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 369/2009 praying for quashing the revised seniority list of Professor-cum-Deputy Directors of CIIL, Mysore, as on 1.7.2005; he has also sought for quashing the order issued in favour of 5th respondent entrusting the work of Additional Charge of CIIL, Mysore; the other consequential reliefs were also sought for, by the petitioner. By the impugned order the prayers of the petitioner are refused.

Sri. Phadke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of professor on 26.11.2002, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed as professors through direct recruitment on 26.5.2003 and 16.7.2003 respectively; since the promotion of the petitioner to the post of professor is much earlier to the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the post of Professor by direct recruitment, seniority list at the first instance was rightly prepared by the Institute placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 3 i.e., above respondent Nos. 5 and 6; absolutely no valid reasons are forthcoming to revise the seniority list for placing respondent Nos. 5 and 6 above the petitioner; respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed above in the seniority list, only with a view to see that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 enjoy the post of Directors of CIIL, Mysore and to avoid the petitioner''s valid claim for the said post. According to him the rules provide for promotion to the post of Professor and therefore, the petitioner was rightly promoted as Professor. The sum and substance of the submission of the petitioner''s counsel is that since the petitioner was promoted as Professor under the Rules much prior to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the post of Professor, he should be placed above respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the seniority list of Professors.

Writ petition is opposed by Mr. S. Prakash Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by contending that the petitioner was not promoted as Professor at all, at any point of time, inasmuch as the rules prohibit the promotion to the post of Professor; the posts of Lecturer, Reader and Professor are to be filled up only by direct recruitment under the Rules and not by promotion; the petitioner was also appointed as Lecturer as well as Reader by direct recruitment, however, he has not been appointed as Professor by direct recruitment; since the rule prohibit promotion to the post of Professor, the question of promoting the petitioner to the post of Professor by the respondents does not arise. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot be treated as Professor at all. He further brings to the notice of the Court that the petitioner was given the benefit of Career Advancement scheme (Financial Up-gradation) by providing him the pay scale of Professor as per rules and as such benefit under Career Advancement Scheme provided to the petitioner cannot be treated as providing promotion to the petitioner. It is further contended by the respondents that the common seniority list in question contained the names of Professors, who are directly recruited as also the persons, who are provided the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme by granting them Professor''s pay-scale; the grant of benefit of Career Advancement Scheme by assigning the pay-scale of Professors, would not in any way be treated as granting promotion as Professors. Therefore, the petitioner merely because he was granted the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme, he cannot claim that he is promoted as Professor and he is drawing the salary of a Professor.

All the documents relied upon by the petitioner clearly reveal that the pay-scale attached to the post of Professor is provided to the petitioner under Career Advancement Scheme. The concerned rules specify that the post of Professor-cum-Deputy Director is filled up through direct recruitment only. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was appointed Professor-cum-Deputy Director by direct recruitment. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that he is promoted to the post of Professor, since the rule prohibits promotion, there is no question of promoting the petitioner to the post of Professor. On the other hand, the records clearly reveal that the petitioner, who was Reader-cum-Research Officer came to be given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme by providing him Professor-cum-Deputy Director''s salary. Merely because he is called as Professor, he cannot claim that he is a Professor legally appointed. Only the pay attached to the Professor is provided to him under Career Advancement Scheme of University Grants Commission. In view of the same, the Institution is justified in revising the seniority list placing the Professors, who are duly appointed by direct recruitment, above the persons, who are given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme.

It is relevant to note here that the petitioner had approached the CAT at an earlier point of time in O.A. No. 1875/2000 and 892/2001 seeking direction to the respondents to incorporate avenue of promotion to the cadre of Professor-cum-Deputy Director in CIIL, Manasagangothri, Mysore; he had also sought for direction that the educational qualification relating Ph.D for the post of Professor-cum-Deputy Director to be read down as eminent scholar with published work etc; he had also sought for quashing the advertisement dated 12.2.2000, which came to be dismissed. Thereby the petitioner''s prayer for creating promotional avenue to the post of Professor had been rejected, undisputedly, as on the date of appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as Professors they possessed the requisite qualification of Ph.D., but the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification of Ph.D. Moreover the Rules clearly prohibited promotion to the post of Professor, same is the verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since there is no promotional avenue available to the post of Professor, the petitioner cannot claim that he was promoted. On the other hand, he was given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme and provided salary attached to the post of Professor. However, his name was also shown in the seniority list along with the others, who were duly appointed as Professor-cum-Deputy Directors through direct recruitment, and the persons who are given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme attached to the post of Professors. Merely because the name of the petitioner is shown in the seniority list of Professors, he cannot be treated as Professor duly appointed by direct recruitment. In view of the same, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly the petition fails and the same stands dismissed.