S. A. Siddiqui vs Prof. M. Wajid Khan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(SC) 18

1999(1) Supreme 20
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Prof. S.A. Siddiqui -Appellant
versus
Prof. M. Wajid Khan & Ors. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7769 of 1997
Decided on 11-01-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Rajesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Ambrish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2-4 : B.D. Agarwala, Sr. Advocate, Ashish Dayal and Vinay Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 5 (UGC) : G.K. Banerjee, (S. Bhatnagar) Advocate, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Advocate.

Headnote:Service Law-Seniority-Professors in Aligarh Muslim University -Inter se seniority among Merit Promoted Professor and Professor appointed to general post-Respondent was appointed to the open post of Professor-Appellant was Promoted Professor under Merit Promotion Scheme much earlier-Claim of regularly appointed Professor that for purpose of seniority or further promotion merit promoted Professor cannot be considered - Not sustainable-Seniority between Professors appointed to general posts in governed by regulations laid down by the Executive Council of University Regulation framed by Executive Council treated Professors appointed under Merit Promotion Scheme and Professors appointed to general post as belonging to same cadre.
       Held : The Executive Council after approving the Merit Promotion Scheme of 1983 for the Aligarh Muslim University also resolved in the exercise of its powers under Statute 30(1), that the inter se seniority among (a) those who were selected to general posts and (b) those promoted under Merit Promotion Scheme would be determined subsequently. Thereafter the Executive Council in the exercise of its powers under Statute 30 framed regulations to determine the inter se seniority amongst persons holding a regular post and those holding the same post under the Merit Promotion Scheme. This was done under its resolution dated June 18/19, 1988 as modified at its meeting of December 10/11, 1988. The selection of those appointed to the general post as also those appointed under Merit Promotion Scheme was to be made by the Selection Committee constituted under Statute 27. (Para 4)
       Thereafter on the basis of the recommendations of the Academic Council made vide its Resolution No. 44 dated 28/29.11.1988 the Executive Council prescribed certain regulations at its meeting held on 10/11.12.1988 to govern implementation of the Merit Promotion Scheme subsequent to the adoption of revised pay-scales of teachers in the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. Under the regulations so framed also it was specifically provided that the principles governing inter se seniority of Readers/Professors appointed under this Scheme vis-a-vis Readers/Professors appointed against a general post as laid down by the Executive Council, shall apply. Clearly, therefore, seniority between Readers/Professors appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme vis-a-vis Readers/Professors appointed to general posts is governed by the regulations laid down by the Executive Council. The Executive Council has treated all posts of Readers and all posts of Professors-whichever be the method of appointment, as belonging to the same cadre and has prescribed rules for inter se seniority between persons appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme and persons appointed to general posts treating them as belonging to the same cadre. In fact, the question of inter se seniority would arise only if all these persons belonged to the same cadre. (Para 5)
       Under the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920, there is no specific provision laying down that appointments to the posts of Professors can only be made in a specific manner or by following a specific procedure, Statute 27(7) gives an express power to the Executive Council to appoint a person to the post of Professor in the University on such terms and conditions as it deems fit if the person possesses high academic distinction and professional attainment. The Executive Council also has the power to appoint Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching and the academic staff on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. It has to act on the recommendation of the Academic Council in laying down the number, qualifications, emoluments and other conditions of service of such teachers. The Executive Council has accordingly in exercise of its powers under Statutes 17 and 27 framed regulations for appointments to the posts of Professors and Readers under the Merit Promotion Scheme. It has also in exercise of its powers under Statute 30 laid down rules providing for inter se seniority between Professors appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme and Professors appointed under the general scheme. In doing so, the Executive Council has acted within its statutory powers. The Aligarh Muslim University has, therefore, rightly prepared seniority list of Professors in accordance with the regulations framed by the Executive Council in which the appellant is shown as senior to respondent No. 1. (Para 8)
       Looking to the Aligarh Muslim University Act and the relevant Statutes the appellant is, therefore, a part of the cadre of Professors in the Aligarh Muslim University and is entitled to seniority above the first respondent in the light of the regulations for determining inter se seniority framed by the Executive Council. He is entitled to all consequential benefits. (Para 12)

Judgment

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-The appellant, Prof. S.A. Siddiqui, and the first respondent, Prof. M. Wajid Khan, are both Professors in the Botany Department of the Aligarh Muslim University. The dispute pertains to seniority as between the appellant and the first respondent. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer in the Aligarh Muslim University on 30th of April, 1965. He became a Reader in the open post of Reader on 30th March, 1979 upon his selection by the selection-committee. He was subsequently selected under the Merit Promotion Scheme for promotion to the post of Professor. On 14th of March, 1987, he was promoted as Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme. The first respondent was appointed as Lecturer must later on 2nd of April, 1973. He was also promoted as Reader much later under the Merit Promotion Scheme on 1.1.1983. Thereafter he has been appointed to the open post of Professor on 10.3.1992 on his selection by the selection committee. Although the first respondent has been appointed as Professor much later than the appellant, he contends that he alone is to be considered for the purpose of seniority and promotion since he holds the post of a Professor on regular selection. He contends that since the appellant was promoted as Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme, he cannot be considered for seniority or further promotions. It is the contention of the Aligarh Muslim University as well as the appellant that both the appellant as well as the first respondent hold the post of Professors and they have been throughout considered as Professors and have been shown in the common seniority list of all Professors. From the year 1992 onwards, that is to say after the appointment of first respondent as Professors, in the seniority list of Professors the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No. 1. For the first time in 1995, the first respondent challenged the placement in the seniority list of the name of the appellant. On 12.6.1995 he made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for determination of inter se seniority between him and the appellant for the purpose of appointment as Chairman of the department. The Vice-Chancellor on 21.6.1995 appointed a sub-committee for the determination of the issue of seniority of the first respondent. On 22.2.1996 the first respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed that separate seniority lists be prepared and the parties appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme be not appointed or continued as Chairman/Dean or any Department of Faculty of the Aligarh Muslim University. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. In 1983 the University Grants Commission formulated a scheme of Merit Promotion with a view “to give recognition to the outstanding work done by the University teachers and to provide for reasonable opportunities to them for professional advancement”. It was so stated by the Chairman of the University Grants Commission in letters addressed to the Vice-Chancellors of various Universities. The University Grants Commission felt that the Merit Promotion Scheme would improve the overall morale of the University teachers and would also minimise to some extent, demands for increasing the number of senior positions during the sixth plan period in the Universities. The following objectives, inter alia, were stated by the University Grants Commission as forming the basis of the Merit Promotion Scheme:

1. The basic objectives of the scheme should be (1) to recognise outstanding work done by the University teachers in the areas of teaching and research (2) subject such work to objective evaluation by experts in the subjects/areas concerned and (3) to provide for reasonable opportunities for professional advancement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition, on a competitive basis. The scheme shoul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 18

Cases Referred (3)