IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is distinction between re-designation and regular appointment – Redesignation cannot be said to be a regular appointment.
(2) Promotion – Whenever a Scheme/Policy is brought into force, ceteris paribus, Court could not and would not import something which is not present therein and which may not be proper to be interfered with, especially when it relates to financial matters.

JUDGMENT

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted in all the petitions.

3. Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil)¹ [hereinafter referred to as the ‘SLP(C)’] No. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011 are directed against the common Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur² [hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’] in D.B. Civil Special Appeals No. 382/2002 and 470/2002 respectively, whereby the writ appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. The Civil Appeal emanating from SLP (C) No. 30963/2018 is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2018, passed by the High Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 714/2018, whereby another appeal filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

BRIEF FACTUAL OVERVIEW:

4. We propose to deal, first, with the challenge to the order dated 20.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the factual background, details and status of the parties shall be with reference to the Civil Appeal emerging from SLP (C) No. 22278/2011.

5. Respondents No. 1 to 54 were appointed as Research Assistants in the erstwhile University of Udaipur, renamed as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and later on, post-bifurcation, named as the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner³ [hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’] (appellant) in the University Grants Commission⁴ [hereinafter referred to as the ‘UGC’] - recommended Pay-Scale of Rs.300-600 prevailing at the time. On 07.09.1977, the University of Udaipur proceeded to designate Research Assistants as Lecturers in terms of a Notification dated 02.07.1974, where the term “Junior Lecturer” was substituted by the term “Lecturer”. It was notified that teachers holding the post of Junior Lecturers or equivalent post are designated as Lecturers. Consequently, Respondents No. 1 to 54 came to be designated as Lecturers. They were also designated as Assistant Professors later on and began drawing the same pay-scale as admissible to other Lecturers/Assistant Professors.

6. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education vide Communication dated 22.07.1988 decided to implement a Career Advancement Scheme⁵ [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAS’] to make the revision of pay-scale of teachers in Universities and Colleges with effect from 01.01.1986, such that every Lecturer was to be placed in a senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 if the person had completed eight years of service after regular appointment.

7. The Government of Rajasthan⁶ [hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Government’] decided to implement CAS. Consequent thereto, the Board of Management⁷ [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’] of the appellant in its Meeting held on 24.11.1988 resolved to give the revised UGC payscales to Lecturers and Research Assistants. The Board further resolved to designate Lecturers/Research Assistants as Assistant Professors. However, it was decided that persons appointed as Assistant Professors directly, will rank senior to the Lecturers/Research Assistants, so designated as Assistant Professors. The Board Resolution dated 24.11.1988 was again reviewed by the Board in its Meeting held on 28.01.1989 and the same was confirmed. Notification dated 04/06.05.1989 was issued by the appellant to the effect that all duly selected Lecturers/Research Assistants will be designated as Assistant Professors with effect from 01.01.1973.

8. The appellant vide Letter dated 22.11.1990 notified Rules for implementing the CAS for Assistant Professors in the University. However, on request being made to the State Government to grant approval to the Resolution dated 24.11.1988 of the Board, the State Government requested the Vice-Chancellor of the appellant that the Resolution of the Board dated 24.11.1988 be rescinded. However, fact remained that in anticipation of the approval, the appellant had already issued the requisite orders. Thereafter, the Board in its Me