The central legal point established is the significance of the council resolution dated 20.06.2008, which influenced the court's decision in setting aside the impugned orders and directing the respondent institution to reconsider the representations.

R. Devdas, J.

The petitioner was appointed as Scientific Officer in the National Centre for Science Information (hereinafter referred to as “NCSI”), in the services of Indian Institute of Science (hereinafter referred to as “IISc”). The order of appointment was issued on 28.03.1989. In terms of the appointment order the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of five years and on probation for a period of one year. On 23.03.1990, the probationary period was declared as satisfactory. In terms of the letter of appointment the petitioner continued to work as Scientific Officer in NCSI, for a period of four years. On 05.04.1994, the Assistant Registrar of IISc issued a letter requesting a report on the work done by the petitioner in NCSI for review and for continuation of her services. On being satisfied with the work of the petitioner, by order dated 07.06.1994, the services of the petitioner was continued upto 31.03.1997 in NCSI.

2. On 13.07.1994, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that her services have to be continued in the cadre of Scientific Officer and sought promotion to the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Principal Research Scientist, etc. However, the selection committee, while evaluating the performance of the petitioner, took a decision to change the cadre from 'scientific' to 'administrative' and promote the petitioner as Technical Officer Grade-II (Administrative cadre). The decision of the selection committee in the note sheet dated 20.06.1996 culminated in an order dated 14.11.1996. By letter dated 17.12.1996, the petitioner accepted the promotion to the post of Technical Officer Grade-II, however, she also requested that her next evaluation be made in three years instead of six years. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Technical Officer Grade-III, on 29.06.2001.

3. The petitioner once again made a representation on 24.11.2005, requesting change of cadre from administrative to scientific/academic cadre. Subsequently, several other representations have been made by the petitioner. In one such representation dated 22.12.2009, the petitioner reminded the respondent IISc of the assurance that was given to her that if she acquires a Ph.D degree, change of cadre could be considered. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner registered herself for PhD degree in Mysore University in 1998, after getting the approval from the respondent to carry out the research work at Mysore University. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent that though the petitioner completed her thesis in 2006 and submitted the same in January, 2007, because of procedural and administrative problems, there was delay in conferment of PhD degree, which was finally awarded during February, 2009. However, by quoting a council resolution which was resolved in June, 2008, that there shall be no transfer of technical officers to scientific officers cadre, even if one acquires higher qualifications, such as ME/MTech/MSc. Engg./PhD, the request of the petitioner was rejected.

4. Subsequently, by letter dated 27.03.2014, the petitioner herein made a representation bringing to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner, having been selected to the post of Scientific Officer, as per the advertisement issued by the respondent, her cadre could not have been transferred from Scientific Officer to Technical Officer (Administrative). The respondents have replied by a communication dated 30.06.2014 narrating the events from the date of appointment. It was stated that during 1993, when the committee was constituted to evolve norms for implementation of revised pay scales to scientific and technical staff, the committee found that the qualifications held by the petitioner could be treated as equivalent to ME/MTech/MSc.Engg. However, during 1995, on completion of six years of regular service, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion as per the provisions contain