AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has allowed
the petitions filed by the petitionersrespondent herein.
In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment. For the convenience of this
court, the facts are taken from SAW No.115/2012.
The facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the respondent University in the department
of Chemistry on regular basis after having been selected through Selection Committee in October, 1967. The appellant was confirmed on the post on
1.8.1976 and was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 1.4.1986. It was alleged that the appellant had to his credit outstanding academic
qualifications and also had published internationally acclaimed papers in various fields of Chemistry. It was submitted that the University Grants
Commission (UGC) floated the University Commission (minimum qualification required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in
the Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulation, 2000 (Regulations for short hereinafter) and the Career Advancement Scheme, 2001 was
introduced by the University which intended to give benefit of personal promotion to the individuals in lieu of long services rendered by them and to
avoid stagnation for promotions on post basis resulting in a pick and choose method being adopted by the Selection Committee formed under the said
Regulations of 2000.
3.1 It was alleged that because of the method adopted by the University the persons junior to the appellant were given personal promotion under the
CAS while the appellant who was the senior most Associate Professor was left out.
Counsel for the appellant has contended that the regularization was not challenged but the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in
observing as under:-
So far as the allegation that committee has made recommendations on their whims and fancies is concerned, I have gone through the original record
and find that no material exist to show as to why petitioners have been denied promotion moreso when they were not found unsuitable. I find that all
the petitioners were found eligible for personal promotion and it has not been disputed by the respondents that personal promotion under the Scheme is
not subject to availability of the post of Professor and by taking comparison merit. Accordingly, all those who are found eligible and considered to be
suitable for promotion cannot be deprived to the aforesaid benefit. Perusal of the original record of the committee shows that all the petitioners were
having required qualification and material to get the benefit of personal promotion yet denied the benefit without any justified reason. It is true that
mere possession of eligibility may not be a ground to get promotion as a matter of right but denial thereof must be on cogent reasons.
While considering the case, the learned Single Judge has held as under:-
The list of material/ paper/ publication submitted and placed on record in regard to the petitioners shows that they were fulfilling the required
conditions and there is nothing adverse against them. Accordingly, even if the committee had no bias against the petitioners, denial of benefit of
personal promotion to them is not based on sound reasoning as otherwise even learned counsel for respondents could not satisfy as to why petitioners
were denied personal promotion. This is more so when it is agreed that no comparative merit was looked by the committee as otherwise personal
promotion under the scheme was irrespective of availability of post of Professor.
In the background aforesaid, matter needs to be remanded back to the respondents for reconsideration of candidature of petitioners as per the scheme
then existing and based on the material already submitted. It is ordered accordingly. It is expected now from the University that while considering
candidature of the petitioners again, same would not be with bias on account of present litigation and if the petitioners are not yet found fit for personal
promotion under the scheme, reasons thereof would be supplied to make the things transparent and appropriate. The directions aforesaid have been
given looking to the argument of the counsel for respondents stating that no bias of any one exists against the petitioners and original record is
produced before this court to indicate the aforesaid thus respondents themselves want to be transparent on the issue.
In our considered opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and no interference is called for.
Hence, the appeals stand dismissed.
We hope that the University will consider the case of all the original petitioners within a period of one year from today and grant them benefit
thereof.