IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that prior non-teaching service can be considered for promotion under the CAS if the roles are deemed equivalent, as per UGC guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 5055/2017, by which, the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed, thereby setting aside the Minutes of the meeting/report of the Committee dated 27.04.2017 and the Minutes of the 53rd and 54th Board of Governors (BOG in short) meeting dated 06.05.2017 in so far as the petitioner/ respondent is concerned. The learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to promote the petitioner as Lecturer (Senior Grade) w.e.f. 03.10.2001 with consequential service benefits including arrear monetary benefits and also to grant consequential service benefits as Lecturer (Selection Grade), Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) on the basis of the UGC notification relating to the appointment of teacher in Universities and Colleges as issued from time to time.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/petitioner is serving as Assistant Professor in National Institute of Technology, Silchar. The respondent/petitioner has challenged the Minutes of the Meeting/Report of the Committee dated 27.04.2017 and a corresponding Minutes of the 53rd and 54th BOG Meeting dated 06.05.2017 with regard to consideration of the case of the respondent/petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Senior Grade) with effect from 03.10.2001 with consequential service benefit including arrear monetary benefits in view of the judgment and order dated 03.02.2017 passed in WP (C) 1969/2014. It is the further case of the respondent/petitioner that he being entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) at least w.e.f. 03.10.2006 with consequential service and monetary benefits and also for a specific direction to the appellants to promote the respondent/petitioner to the post of Associate Professor on completion of 3 years as Assistant Professor.

4. Essentially, the grievance of the respondent/petitioner is that the post which he was previously holding as System Programmer, a post equivalent to the post of lecturer, in the establishment of the appellants, should be taken into account for consideration for promotion, under the Career Advancement Scheme (in short CAS). Therefore, he is entitled to be promoted under the CAS by considering the period of service as System Programmer.

5. The contention of the respondent/petitioner is that the decision of the Appellants Institute in not considering promotion of the respondent/petitioner under CAS, is in the teeth of the judgment and order dated 03.02.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1969/2014 by this Hon’ble court (since not complied with) and as such the impugned minutes of the meeting of the committee dated 27.04.2017 and the corresponding minutes of the 53rd and 54th BOG meeting dated 06.05.2017 so far as the respondent/petitioner is concerned being illegal and arbitrary, is liable to be set aside and quashed. The post held by respondent/ petitioner as System Programmer being equivalent to the post of Lecturer and considering his past service, ought to have recommended for promotion under the CAS and the appellants by not doing the same had acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner and as such the minutes of the BOG rejecting the promotion of respondent/petitioner is illegal as the BOG while rejecting the prayer of the respondent/petitioner had failed to take into account that the respondent/petitioner while discharging his duties had qualified himself for promotion to the next higher post under CAS.

6. On the other hand, the contention of the appellants is that the entitlement of the respondent/petitioner was actually based on his initial entry and since the post of teaching and non-teaching cannot be equated with under any circumstances as such