Manisha Tripathi vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral)

The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are as follows:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to promote the petitioner under the

Career Advancement Scheme and grant her the benefit of pay band change Rs. 7000-8000 w.e.f. Nov. 2014.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to take a decision on the recommendation of

the selection committee held on 27.07.2016 and relax the requirement of minimum API score under category I and II for promotion under Career

Advancement Scheme from stage 2 to 3.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to take a decision on the pending

representations annexed along with the writ petitions of petitioner.â€​

The petitioner seeks, in short, the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner alleges that she is entitled

to have the period from 2009 to 2012 during which the petitioner was pursuing the doctorate, to be considered for the purpose of grant of the benefit

of Career Advancement Scheme. According to the petitioner, though the regulations have been framed in the year 2010, they cannot have

retrospective effect. It is her further case that the selection committee by its decision dated 17.08.2016 has already recommended relaxation in favour

of the petitioner. The matter is pending consideration before the respondent-University. Petitioner has also impleaded U.G.C.

We heard Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. We also heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Senior Counsel on behalf of the University and Mr.

Vikas Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 4. This is besides Mr. R.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

For redressal of her grievance the petitioner has already represented the matter before the respondent-University based on the recommendation

dated 17.08.2016 made in her favour. There is a question as to whether it is the University, which can take a decision on the same or whether it is

U.G.C. According to the petitioner, the matter is recommended before the University by the selection committee, but there is no representation

directly addressed to the UGC. In the circumstances, we pass the following order:

We direct the 2nd respondent to consider and take a decision on Annexure-12 in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of

production of certified copy of the judgment. It will be open to the University that if it finds it necessary and legal to refer the matter to U.G.C. In that

eventuality, if the matter is referred to U.G.C., a decision will be taken by U.G.C., in turn, within a period of six weeks from the date it receives

reference from the University. We leave open all the contentions of the petitioner and also the right to approach this Court seeking the same relief

except no doubt the relief, which we have granted in this case.