AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pursuant to the order dated 29.3.2011, Registrar of the University is present in Court.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Advertisement to fill up the vacancy of Professor, Reader and Lecturer was made by the University on 14.6. 2009 and 1.4. 2010. Interview was held on 14/15-1.2011. Admittedly, selection was held in pursuance to old rules. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Regulation, framed by U.G.C. dated 30.6.2010, copy of which has been filed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that no selection could be held in contravention of the provision contained in regulation, framed by the U.G.C.
Learned Counsel for the University states that the selection was held according to Rule prevalent at the time of advertisement (supra)
The only question which requires consideration is whether the Regulation 2010 can be applied while making appointments in pursuance to the advertisement (supra) earlier published.
At the face of record, Regulation 1.3 of the Regulation provides that it shall come into force with immediate effect. However, the proviso to Regulation 1.3 provides that in the event any candidate becomes eligible for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme in terms of these Regulations on or after 31st December, 2008, promotion of such candidate shall be governed by the provisions of these Regulations subject to provision contained therein. Regulation has been given prospective application with immediate effect. From a plain reading of the Regulations, there appears to be no ambiguity therein. It is a settled law that the Rules or Regulations shall be prospective in application unless they are made retrospective by the framers of such Regulations or Rules.
It has been submitted by the Petitioner''s counsel that the proviso to Regulation 1.3 of the Regulations with regard to appointment under the Career Advancement Scheme makes the provision retrospective.
The argument advanced by the Petitioner''s counsel, seems to be misconceived. Caussus Omissus may be supplied only in case the language of the rules are ambiguous. In case the statute does not contain any provision by making its application retrospective, then in any case, it cannot be considered to be retrospective by the Court. However, the framers of the rule were cautious enough. They made it retrospective only with regard to vacancies falling under the Career Advancement Scheme and not against regular vacancies.
The Government Order dated 31.12.2010 also provides that the Regulation shall be applicable with immediate effect. Otherwise also the Government Order cannot supersede the Regulation framed by the U.G.C.
Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the letter of Registrar from which it reveals that the vacancy shall be covered under the U.G.C. Regulations. Even if the Registrar has incorrectly interpreted the UGC Regulations or made some incorrect observation, he cannot take a decision contrary to the provisions contained in the U.G.C. Circular.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the judgment reported in Prof. Yashpal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, and in the case reported in University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh and others, submitted that the circular issued by the U.G.C. is binding on the University.
No doubt, it is well settled that the Circular, Rules and Regulations shall be binding on the University. However, the facts remains that the Rules have been made applicable with prospective effect and, therefore, we do not find reason to interfere with the selection in question. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner''s right to challenge the selection on any ground or illegality.
No cost.