IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion eligibility under UGC regulations must be honored, and government financial concerns cannot unjustly hinder rightful promotions.

JUDGMENT :

Since common issue is raised in both these writ petitions they are heard and disposed of together by a common judgment, in which WP(C) No.10699 of 2020 is treated as the leading case.

2. The breif facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

Petitioner joined service as lecturer in physics in UC College, Aluva in 1988. On 01.01.2009 the petitioner became eligible to be appointed and designated as professor according to paragraph 6.1.13 of Ext.P1 Government Order regarding the implementation of the UGC scheme. The relevant paragraph 6.1.13 reads as follows:-

“Associate Professor completing three years of service in the A.G.P. of Rs.9,000/- and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the U.G.C. and if any, by the University. No teacher other than those with a Ph.D. shall be promoted, appointed or designated as Professor. The pay band of the post of Professors shall be Rs.37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs.10,000/-”

Based on the same it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner satisfied the above condition in Ext.P1 on 01.01.2009 itself. Thereupon petitioner submitted a performa and details for promotion as Professor under UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as evident from Ext.P2. Ext.P3 curriculum vitae of the petitioner was also submitted. Even after a lapse of two and half years, the 4^th respondent Manager did not care to process the petitioner’s application. Thereupon Ext.P4 request was made before the Manager to which Ext.P5 reply was given by the 4^th respondent Manager stating that the 1^st respondent Government would not take the excess financial liabilities of promoting and designating eligible Associate Professor as Professor. It is for the said reason that the petitioner’s application is not processed and sent to the 2^nd respondent University for approval.

3. Petitioner submits that Ext.P3 reply is given on the basis of Exts.P6 and P7 Government orders. A perusal of Exts.P6 and P7 reveal that the 1^st respondent Government accepts the mandate of UGC regulation 2010 for promotion and designation of eligible Associate Professors as Professors, however the excuse put forward by the 1^st respondent is that they will have to incur a huge burden if the Associate Professors are designated as Professors in private aided colleges. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P8 UGC regulation which also makes it clear that an Associate Professor having three years of completed service shall be eligible to be designated as Professor. Petitioner would further submit that by Ext.P9 order the Government implemented UGC Regulation 2018 strictly in accordance with the standard norms and procedure set out by the UGC Regulation 2018, and pursuant to the said Government order produced as Ext.P9 petitioner applied for designation as Professor and she was desginated as Professor with effect from 18.07.2018 as per Ext.P10 order.

4. Petitioner relies on Ext.P13 judgment of the High Court of Delhi, wherein a direction was issued to promote the petitioners therein who were Associate Professors to the post of Professors with effect from the date of eligibility. Based on the same the case of the petitioner is that she is entitled for promotion as Professor from the date of her eligibility i.e. from 01.01.2009. Petitioner further submits that in the case of a similarly situated Associate Professor, this Court by Ext.P14 judgment in WP(C) No.2688 of 2022 directed the State to consider and take a decision on her claim for promotion under the UGC Regulation 2010 and in compliance of the said direction in Ext.P14 judgment, Ext.P15 order was issued granting promotion to the petitioner therein under UGC Regulation 2010. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P16 communication issued by the University Grants Commission which clarified in no uncertain terms that teachers who fulful the eligibility criter