AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.The reason put forth in the impugned order of 28th February, 2018 (Annexure P-2) to deny promotion to petitioners is that their API score for
extending benefits under the Career Assured Scheme (CAS) granted to them in the year 2013 as Associate Professor, was not in order.
2.Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned order does not disclose as to on what basis it is so said.
3.This is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, respondent-Institute vide order of 3rd January, 2018 (Annexure P-13) was directed
to convey to petitioners as to why they have not been called for interview for promotional post of Professor.
4.Impugned order is silent on the aforesaid vital aspect and hence, it is set aside. Respondent-Institute is directed to now disclose to petitioners within
a period of six weeks from today as to how the API scores obtained by petitioners under the CAS in the year 2013 were not in order and as to
whether on the said ground, petitioners can be denied promotion to the next post i.e. of Professor. Let a speaking order be passed and petitioners be
apprised within the above stipulated time by respondent-Institute justifying denial of promotion to petitioners. Such a course be adopted so that
petitioners may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. It is made clear that if the interview process for the said post is to be concluded
before intimating petitioners in terms of this order, then petitioners also be called for the interview. However, the result of the interview be kept in a
sealed cover for a period of twelve weeks from today.
5.With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.
6.Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.