Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Registrar Karnataka University and Another – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Prabhugouda and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4079 of 2020, S.L.P. (C) No. 8088 of 2020
Decided On : 17-12-2020
Service Law – Promotion – Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) – Clause 17 of Statute provides for Counting of Past Service for Direct Recruitment and Promotion Under CAS – For the purpose of granting CAS promotion, incumbent teacher must have holding a substantive sanctioned post, as much as CAS promotion being a personal promotion to incumbent teacher and on superannuation of individual incumbent, said post shall revert back to its original cadre – Incumbent teacher must be on roll and active services of University or College on the date of consideration by Selection Committee for selection under CAS Promotion – Term “College” used in the Statute is referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated College – Even private colleges have to seek affiliation from jurisdictional University – There cannot be any promotion in University for period where writ petitioner was not in effective service of University – University is not expected to order promotion for period when he was working in affiliated college – High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect that first respondent was not in actual service of University or of constituent College, has ordered to extend benefit from 01.01.2009, on the ground that he has completed three years of service, by working as Assistant Professor in Mathematics in UGC pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009 – University has correctly interpreted various clauses of Statute and by giving benefit of past service, has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry into service of University – For the purpose of grant of promotions under CAS, word ‘College’ is to be interpreted, keeping in mind preamble of Statute governing promotions – Though earlier service is to be counted for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion, but effective date for all purposes is only from date of entry of first respondent into University service, i.e, 28.10.2013 – University is not expected to grant promotion covering period anterior to entry of service of first respondent into University – As such, University has rightly given benefit of promotion from 28.10.2013 – Judgment and Order passed by High Court in writ appeal quashed. [Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – Section 2(2); Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of Statute] (Paras 15 to 19)
Facts of the case:
Instant civil appeal is filed by the Karnataka University, at Dharwad, through its Registrar and another, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.01.2020, passed in writ appeal No.100436 of 2019, by High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. By impugned Order, Division Bench of High Court has dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants herein, calling in question the order passed by Single Judge in writ petition No. 100353 of 2018 (S-PRO) dated 13.03.2019 allowing the writ petition and declaring that the effective date of “Career Advancement Scheme” (‘CAS’) promotion of first respondent-writ petitioner was 01.01.2009 and also directed to grant all consequential benefits to him, as flow from such fixation. In fact, CAS promotion was already given to the first respondent-writ petitioner and pay fixation has already been made, but it was from date of 28.10.2013.
Findings of Court:
Even private colleges have to seek affiliation from the jurisdictional University, as such College is widely defined in Act. Said definition cannot be readily imported, as defined, for the purpose of grant of promotions under CAS. For the purpose of grant of promotions under CAS, word ‘College’ is to be interpreted, keeping in mind, preamble of the statute, governing promotions.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal is filed by the Karnataka University, at Dharwad, through its Registrar and another, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.01.2020, passed in writ appeal No. 100436 of 2019, by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
3. By the aforesaid Order, Division Bench of High Court has dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants herein, calling in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 100353 of 2018 (S-PRO) dated 13.03.2019 allowing the writ petition and declaring that the effective date of “Career Advancement Scheme” (for short ‘CAS’) promotion of the first respondent-writ petitioner was 01.01.2009 and also directed to grant all consequential benefits to him, as flow from such fixation. In fact, the CAS promotion was already given to the first respondent-writ petitioner and pay fixation has already been made, but it was from the date of 28.10.2013.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that, the first respondent-writ petitioner had claimed his promotion under CAS, promulgated by the UGC, to be given effect from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013, from which date, promotion is given to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was earlier working as an Associate Professor, in J.S.S. College, which is affiliated to Karnataka University. In pursuance of syndicate Resolution No. 24 dated 26.10.2013, the writ petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the P.G. Department of Studies in Mathematics in the University. Pursuant to his appointment, he joined in the service of the University on 28.10.2013 and vide order dated 31.12.2015, his service was confirmed with effect from 28.10.2013.
5. By issuing Circular dated 04.07.2013, the University invited applications for promotion, from eligible Assistant Professors, Associate professor and Professor (Stage 5) under CAS. The first respondent-writ petitioner made an application in response to the said Circular, for promotion to the post of Professor under UGC, CAS. He appeared for interview on 12.08.2014 before the Board of Appointment (BOA), which has recommended his case for promotion and accordingly promotion order was issued on 16.02.2016, promoting the writ petitioner as a Professor, with effect from 28.10.2013, that is, from the date of his eligibility, to the said post. He has been promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 28.10.2013, taking into consideration his past three years of service in previous college, where he worked as Associate Professor. The claim of the first respondent-writ petitioner in the High Court was that as he has completed three years of service in the cadre of Associate Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009, as such, he ought to have been considered for promotion under CAS from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013. During the relevant time, neither he was in the service of the University nor working in any of the constituent Colleges of the University, but he was in service of J.S.S. College, Dharwad, which is an affiliated College to the Dharwad University. The first respondent-writ petitioner made representations dated 18.03.2016 and 25.07.2016, in this regard, for which, he was replied by the University on 04.08.2017. The claim of the writ petitioner, for grant of CAS promotion from 01.01.2009, was placed before the Syndicate of the University, and the Syndicate in its meeting held on 19.07.2017, vide Resolution No. 36, has rejected the claim, stating that there is no provision to grant the said benefit from 01.01.2009, as claimed. In accordance with the Resolution of the Syndicate, an endorsement came to be issued by the University on 04.08.2017, a copy which was served on the writ petitioner.
6. Challenging the Resolution of the Syndicate of the University, bearing Resolution No. 36, dated 19.07.2017 and the endorsement dated 04.08.2017, the first respondent has filed writ petition No. 100353 of 2018 before the High Court
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
