Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Dr. Mahavir Singh Kalon – Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi Through Its Registrar & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1945 of 2022
Decided On : 15-05-2023
Promotion - University Regulations - CAS-2010 - [Promotion, University Regulations, CAS-2010] - The court discussed the issue of promotion to the post of Professor (Stage-5) and the applicability of CAS-2010 and Regulations 2010. The court emphasized the importance of Clause 6.3.12 of CAS-2010, which provides for promotion from the date of minimum period of eligibility if the candidate is successful. The court also highlighted the discriminatory action of the University in denying promotion from the date of eligibility and the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought promotion to the post of Professor (Stage-5) from his date of eligibility, but the University granted promotion from the date of interview by the Selection Committee. The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the promotion decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner's case was covered by a previous judgment and that promotion to the post of Professor (Stage-5) should relate back to the date of eligibility. The court also noted the discriminatory action of the University and its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner was entitled to promotion and seniority from the date of eligibility or from the date of interview by the Selection Committee. The court also considered the applicability of CAS-2010 and Regulations 2010.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Clause 6.3.12 of CAS-2010, which provides for promotion from the date of minimum period of eligibility if the candidate is successful. The court emphasized that the Petitioner's case was covered by a previous judgment and that the University's action amounted to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the resolution and order that granted promotion from the date of interview. The court issued a writ of mandamus to the University to issue a fresh order reckoning the promotion of the Petitioner from the date of eligibility with all consequential benefits including reckoning seniority from the date of eligibility.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside resolution dated 01-02.07.2019 of Executive Council to the extent that Petitioner is promoted to the post of Professor (Stage-5) w.e.f. 26.06.2019 instead of his date of eligibility i.e., 21.10.2015; AND
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside order dated 04.07.2019 passed by Respondent No. 1 to the extent that Petitioner is promoted to the post of Professor (Stage-5) w.e.f. 26.06.2019 instead of his date of eligibility i.e., 21.10.2015; AND
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus to Respondents thereby directing them to correct and re-fix the seniority of the Petitioner in the grade of Professor (Stage-5) from the actual date of his eligibility i.e., 21.10.2015 instead of date of interview i.e., 25.06.2019; OR"
2. Factual matrix to the extent relevant for adjudication of the writ petition is that Petitioner joined Respondent No. 1/University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `University') as a Lecturer in the year 2000 and was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in 2004 and finally as a Reader in 2009. University Grants Commission (`UGC') issued a Career Advancement Scheme-2010 (`CAS-2010') in order to regulate general conditions of service and promotion policies of staff of the Universities and Colleges. Pursuant thereto, UGC issued UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in University and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standard in Higher Education), Regulations 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the `Regulations 2010'). Regulations 2010 provided that an Associate Professor, on completion of three years of service in Stage-4 and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline, shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as a Professor in the next higher grade i.e. Stage-5. In 2012 Petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor (Stage-4).
3. According to the Petitioner, he completed three years of continuous service as Associate Professor (Stage-4) and attained eligibility to be promoted to the post of Professor (Stage-5) on 21.10.2015. On 24.04.2014, UGC issued a Notification prescribing that promotion under CAS-2010 shall be governed by UGC Regulations in operation on the date candidate attains his eligibility and it was directed that it was obligatory for all Universities to follow the Regulations in toto. Therefore, as per this Notification, promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Professor was governed by Regulations 2010.
4. Petitioner applied for promotion to the post of Professor (Stage-5) on 27.04.2017 and was called for interview by the Selection Committee on 25.06.2019 along with 9 other candidates. Out of total 10 candidates, 7 including the Petitioner were recommended for promotion under CAS-2010. 3 candidates out of 7 were recommended for promotion from the date of their eligibility, while remaining 4 including the Petitioner were recommended from 25.06.2019 i.e. the date of interview by the Selection Committee. Recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by Respondent No. 3/Executive Council on 01-02.07.2019.
5. Pursuant to the approval granted by Respondent No. 3, University communicated its decision of grant of promotion to the Petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.2019 vide its order dated 04.07.2019. This, according to the Petitioner, was illegal since he was entitled to promotion from the date he attained eligibility i.e. on 21.10.2015 as per Clause 6.3.12 of CAS-2010 and University gave no reason for applying a different yardstick to the Petitioner. Petitioner made a representation dated 16.03.2021 seeking benefit of Clause 6.3.12 as well as of the common judgment passed by this Court in Dr. Kiran Gupta v. The University of Delhi and Others, W.P. (C) No. 10564/2019 and two connected petitions decided on 08.03.2
It is not necessary for Selection Committee to give reasons for its conclusion, suffice to state, Supreme Court had given a finding to that effect in cases where the rules do not contemplate so. Ther....
Promotion of teachers must relate back to the date of eligibility per UGC regulations, not just the interview date.
The main legal principle established is that UGC Regulations, 2010 have prospective effect and candidates who fulfill eligibility criteria before the enforcement of the regulations can be considered ....
Promotion is not a vested right and an employee only has the right to be considered for promotion.
An employee is entitled to promotion from the date of eligibility only if they meet the stipulated criteria; failure to do so negates the claim.
Promotions to the post of Professor must comply with U.G.C. regulations requiring eight years of service as Reader, and failure to provide a hearing before annulling promotions violates principles of....
Eligibility for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme requires active service status on the date of consideration, as per UGC Regulations.
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
