Rifat John vs University Of Kashmir & Anr.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

Through the medium of the present amended petition, the applicant has sought, inter alia, the following reliefs-

The applicant pleaded that the respondent no.1 – University, had invited applications for the post of Lecturer in Botany. Pursuant to advertisement Notice dated 14.01.2004, the applicant, who possessed a M.Sc. Degree in Environmental Botany and a Ph.D from Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, (IIT), besides having qualified NET-JRF and GATE Examination, applied for the post in question and participated in the selection process. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, upon conclusion of the selection process, the applicant was duly selected and figured at Sr. No.6 in the Select Central Administrative Tribunal^List.

It was, however, submitted that notwithstanding her selection, the applicant was not issued an appointment order, as the respondent no.1 – University deferred her appointment on the ground that equivalence of the Degree possessed by her was required to be examined. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, whereas other selected candidates, came to be appointed, the applicant’s appointment was kept pending on the aforesaid ground.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, aggrieved of the deferment of her appointment, the applicant approached Hon’ble High Court by filing SWP No. 607/2007, wherein the respondent no.1 – University disclosed that the question concerning equivalence of the applicant’s Degree was pending before the Syndicate. It was submitted that taking note of the said position, the Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 25.11.2008 directed the respondent – University to take a final decision Central Administrative Tribunal^{through its Syndicate on the question of equivalence} within a period of two weeks and further directed that, in the event, the Syndicate granted equivalence to the applicant’s Degree, the respondent University shall issue an appointment order in her favour within a period of two weeks. The said petition was accordingly, disposed of.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondent- University, issued notification dated 19.07.2008, whereby notified that Equivalence Committee of the University, in its meeting held on 04.06.2008 had recognized the M.Sc. Environmental Botany Degree awarded by Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi as equivalent to M.Sc. Botany Degree of University of Kashmir.

On the strength of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impediment which had earlier stood in the way of the applicant’s appointment had subsequently been removed, the respondent- University ought to have proceeded to appoint the applicant even before the passing of the order dated 25.11.2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal^{Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 607/2007. However, it is} contended that the respondent failed to process the applicant’s case for appointment, thereby compelling the applicant to institute contempt proceedings against the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the course of said proceedings the respondents admitted the issuance of the notification, recognizing the applicant’s Degree as equivalent to the prescribed qualification for the post. However, the respondents submitted that the post against which the applicant was to be appointed has ceased to exist/had lapsed. At the same time, the respondents also stated that the matter had been taken up with the government for creation of post in question.

The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that despite the assurance given by the respondents before the Hon’ble Court, no appointment order was issued in favor of the applicant, instead the respondents issued another advertisement dated 18.03.2011, inviting Central Administrative Tribunal^{applications against four posts of Assistant Professors in} Botany. In view of the aforesaid development, the applicant once again approached the Hon’ble High court filing the petition (SWP No. 772/2011) and the Hon’ble High Court passed certain directions vide order dated 18.04.2011. It is stated by the learned counsel, the respondents thereafter, issued an appointment order dated 01.11.2011 in favor of the applicant, appointing her as Assistant Professor in Department of Botany.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, that appointment was made only prospectively, notwithstanding that applicant had been selected way back on 05.02.2007 by Selection Committee, submitted a representation seeking her appointment be given effect from the date of her selection. The said request was declined by the respondents, compelling the applicant to approach the Hon’ble High Court of J&K by way of present petition, which was subsequently transferred to this Bench and was renumbered as T.A./109/2024.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{09.After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel} for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied, if the petition is disposed of with a time bound directions to the respondents to give notional effect to her appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Botany from the date i.e. 04.06.2008 on which Equivalence Committee held its meeting and granted equivalence to the qualification possessed by the applicant, and to extend her such consequential/notional benefits as may be admissible for the period intervening between 04.06.2008 and the date of her formal joining pursuant to the appointment order 01.11.2011.

The respondents entered appearance and filed their response, resisting the claim of the applicant, stating claim of the applicant are not maintainable as she was given the appointment in 2011 upon creation of the post.

Mr. Asif Maqbool, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that, subject to applicable rules/regulations and other governing provisions, and provided there is no other legal impediment, the respondents shall consider and decide the Central Administrative Tribunal^{claim of the applicant, as projected by the learned counsel} for the applicant, within the time-frame stipulated by this Tribunal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and having regard to the admitted position that the applicant was duly selected pursuant to the selection process undertaken by the respondents in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.01.2004 issued for the post in question and her name figured at Sr. No.6 in the Select List, further that the Equivalence Committee of the respondent - University had in its meeting held on 04.06.2008 recognized the Degree/qualification possessed by the applicant as equivalent to the prescribed qualification for the post in question. Subsequently, the applicant was appointed as Assistant Professor, pursuant to the appointment order dated 01.11.2011, we are of the view that present petition can appropriately be disposed of Central Administrative Tribunal^{with a direction to the competent authority of the} respondents to consider the applicant’s claim in a time bound manner for grant of notional effect to her appointment and the consequential/notional service benefits etc.

Accordingly, the competent authority of the respondents shall consider and grant notional effect to her appointment as Assistant Professor in Botany w.e.f. 04.06.2008 the date on which the Equivalence Committee recognized the qualification possessed by the applicant as equivalent to the prescribed qualification for the post in question, and shall also consider the applicant’s claim for consequential/notional benefits flowing therefrom, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and complied within a period of six weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith thereafter.

It is, however, made clear that for the period intervening between 04.06.2008 and the date of applicants’ Central Administrative Tribunal^{actual/formal joining pursuant to the appointment order} dated 01.11.2011, the applicant shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits, the same being governed by the principle of “No Work, No Pay”. The applicants’ claim for notional benefits, shall, accordingly, be confined to such benefits as are legally admissible without involving payment of salary or other monetary emoluments for the said period.

It is further clarified that, while undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondent shall not take into consideration the communication/order dated 21.10.2015, subject of course, to there being no other legal or factual impediment in granting the notional benefits claimed and restricted hereto by applicant which are otherwise admissible to her as per law.

The petition is disposed of, in above terms with no order as to costs.

The connected MAs., are accordingly, disposed of. Consign the file to the Record Room after due Central Administrative Tribunal^compliance.