Professor S.N. Singh vs University of Delhi

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/Professor Sh. S.N. Singh seeking benefit of promotion to the post of Professor w.e.f. 06.07.1992 when the petitioner completes ten years of service as a Reader in Law Centre II of the respondent/University of Delhi. Petitioner stood promoted as a Professor in October 1996 but the petitioner claims that the promotion to Professor be made effective from 06.07.1992. The issue in this petition is therefore, limited to the claim for monetary benefits of the post of Professor from July, 1992 to October 1996. The case as set up by the petitioner and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent shows that the following admitted position emerges:-

(i) There were two methods for appointment of Professors, first was by means of promotion from the post of Readers who were already working with respondent/university and second was by direct recruitment. Appointment by direct recruitment was subject to selection by a Selection Committee whereas promotion to Professor was automatic after 10 years of service albeit with a pay scale lower than given to a Professor appointed by selection through direct recruitment. The relevant rule specifying requirements for the post of a professor is as under:-

An eminent scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research with 10 years of experience in post-graduate teaching and/or research at the University/national level institution including experience of guiding research at doctoral level.

OR

An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.

(ii) A Reader could be promoted to the post of a Professor provided such a person exercised an option in terms of the Merit Promotion Scheme 1983 as modified in 1986, whereby such Readers though would get the promotion to the post of a Professor after 10 years of service, however, they were to take a lower pay scale then the Professors appointed by means of direct recruitment.

(iii) The disparity of pay scale between Professors appointed by promotion and by direct recruitment came to an end only w.e.f. 14.10.1996, but till that date, if a Reader had exercised an option in terms of Merit Promotion Scheme 1983 as modified in 1986 then such a person would have had lesser pay scale than a Professor who has been appointed by direct recruitment. Logic probably is of automatic appointment as Professor on completing 10 years of service was without selection and without considering the requirements of the rule for a Professor and hence a lesser pay to a promotee Professor as differentiated than a Professor appointed by selection through a Selection Committee by complying with the requirements of the relevant rule.

The petitioner does not dispute that he exercised the option under the 1983 Scheme as modified in 1986 on 24.03.1988. However, this option was an incorrectly exercised option because though the petitioner wanted to be appointed as a Professor by promotion on completing 10 years as Reader, he did not agree to the terms of 1983 scheme as modified by 1986 scheme to take the lesser pay scale as given to the Professor appointed by direct recruitment. An option is validly exercised only if option is exercised in terms of the scheme. If the terms of a scheme states that a person can become a Professor from a Reader after ten years of service as a reader but he will get a lesser pay scale than a Professor appointed by direct recruitment, persons such as present petitioner who exercised the option have to exercise the option in an unqualified manner for becoming a Professor with a lesser pay scale. It may be added that a person, if he does not exercise the option, such person can always seek direct appointment to the post of professor by direct recruitment by appearing before the Selection Committee which does the direct recruitment to the post of a Professor. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefit of the Merit Promotion Scheme 1983 as modified in 1986 because there was no valid option exercised in 1988 by the petitioner in terms of the scheme.

The petitioner admittedly thereafter exercised the option in terms of Scheme 1983 as modified in 1986 for the second time in the year 1994 i.e. on 30.08.1994. That the petitioner could have exercised the option is not disputed, however, petitioner himself brought about the non consideration of his application of 1994 because in the application of 1994, petitioner admittedly stated that his application of 1994 be only considered if his earlier application of 1988 was not on record. The fact of the matter however was that because the application/option of the petitioner of 1988 was on record of the University, therefore, the respondent-University, as stated in its counter-affidavit did not consider the application of 1994 which as per its language was to be only considered if the earlier application of 1988 was not on record.

The conclusion which emerges from the above stated facts is that the petitioner firstly exercised an option invalidly in 1988 because the option for being valid to claim the benefit of Merit Promotion Scheme, the petitioner had to unconditionally exercise the option for becoming a Professor after 10 years with a lesser pay scale than as given to Professors appointed by direct recruitment, but the petitioner gave only a conditional option of wanting to be appointed as a Professor at a higher pay scale given to those Professors who were appointed by direct recruitment. Not only the first option exercised in 1988 was invalid, even the second option exercised in 1994 was invalid because in this option exercised in 1994, the petitioner stated that this 1994 option be only considered if the earlier 1988 application/option was not on record but since the 1988 application/option of the petitioner was on record, the respondent/University did not consider the 1994 application/option.

Admittedly, the third option thereafter exercised by the petitioner is vide a letter dated 07.10.1996 which was received by appropriate department of University on 18.10.1996, therefore, the petitioner can be validly said to have exercised the option under the Merit Promotion Scheme 1983 as modified in 1986 only in October 1996. Therefore, the benefit of the scheme can flow to the petitioner only from the date of exercising the option in October 1996. Retrospective benefit cannot be given because retrospective monetary liability cannot be fixed on an employer once the option is not validly exercised at the relevant earlier time. It is not disputed before me that w.e.f. October, 1996, the petitioner has got the pay scale of a Professor i.e. petitioner was promoted from Reader to Professor w.e.f. October, 1996 and by which time there was no disparity of pay scales of Professors by promotion or direct recruitment.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner that he should be given promotion to the post of Professor from a Reader w.e.f. 06.07.1992 i.e. on completion of 10 years of service as a Reader. Before the petitioner could have been given the appointment to the post of Professor it was not only necessary that the petitioner should have completed 10 years of service as Reader but the petitioner should also have validly exercised the option for becoming a Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme 1983 as modified in 1986 by agreeing to take a lesser pay scale and which the petitioner admittedly did not do till October 1986.

Except for the benefit of promotion to the post of Professor w.e.f. 06.07.1992, no other relief was pressed before me. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.