Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Dr. Manu - Appellant
Vs.
Sree Sankaracharya University Of Sanskrit - Respondent
WP(C) 24652 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2025
(A) UGC Regulations - Clause 6.1.1 and Clause 6.1.11 - Government Order dated 27.03.2010 - Promotion and placement of university faculty - The petitioner sought placement as Professor from 01.06.2009, citing prior service and eligibility under UGC regulations, but was denied due to insufficient API scores and lack of required publications. (Paras 1, 5, 11, 12)
(B) Promotion Criteria - The court emphasized that eligibility for promotion requires submission of a satisfactory Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and recognized publications, which the petitioner failed to provide. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a university professor, contested the denial of his promotion to Professor, claiming prior service and eligibility under UGC guidelines. He was placed as Associate Professor but not promoted due to insufficient academic credentials.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the university's decision, affirming that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for promotion.
Issues: The main issues included the eligibility criteria for promotion and the sufficiency of the petitioner's academic qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to meet the UGC's promotion criteria, specifically regarding the submission of required documentation and the quality of publications.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The petitioner, who is working as Professor and Head of the Department (Hindi), Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, seeks to set aside Exts.P2, P4 and P12 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to modify Ext.P7 order by giving placement to the petitioner as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009.
2. The petitioner states that prior to the year 1999, the petitioner had ten years and six months of service in the Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent-Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit on 14.07.1999. On 01.11.2022, the petitioner joined the 4th respondent-Central University of Kerala.
3. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent- University to count his past service for service benefits. Considering his past service, the 1st respondent found that the petitioner is eligible to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 22.12.2000. The petitioner was placed as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 14.07.2000 granting notional selection post with effect from 22.12.1999. The petitioner was informed that he cannot be placed as Professor as he has not secured requisite score. The petitioner was, however, placed as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. Later, the petitioner was placed as Professor with effect from 12.11.2017.
4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation to the 2nd respondent requesting to treat his application dated 12.11.2017 for placement as Professor as per the 5th UGC Scheme and to revise the placement as Professor with effect from 23.12.2007. The application was rejected as per Ext.P12 communication. The petitioner submitted a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P13. The respondents have not passed any favourable orders.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for counting his past service as provided in Clause 7.1 of Government Order dated 21.12.1999. The application was considered by the University after a lapse of more than 10 years. Thereafter, the salary fixation order was issued on 12.01.2012. The petitioner was granted notional Selection Grade post with effect from 22.12.1999. The petitioner’s further career advancement should be considered from 22.12.1999. The petitioner was not granted Selection Grade.
6. Government Order dated 27.03.2010 adopted the 5th UGC Scheme including revision of pay scale. The adoption took place with effect from 01.01.2006. The petitioner fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Clause 6.1.1 of the Government Order. His request for placement with effect from 01.06.2009 was declined by the University as per Ext.P4. The petitioner is a victim of prejudice perpetuated by the authorities, contended the counsel for the petitioner.
7. The 1st respondent resisted the writ petition. The 1st respondent stated that the University implemented UGC 5th Regulation as per order dated 11.11.2011. All the applications received for promotion under CAS were disposed of by the University. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 12.11.2017. The PBAS submitted by the petitioner in 2012 was scrutinised by the Statutory Screening Committee on 10.10.2012. It was found that the petitioner does not have sufficient API scores. Therefore, he was not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor. The petitioner was informed of the same as per Ext.R1(d) communication dated 26.11.2012. The petitioner did not challenge the same within a reasonable time. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contends the Standing Counsel.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respective learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 6 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 5th respondent.
9. The petitioner was appointed in the 1st respondent-University as Lecturer on 14.07.1999. Taking note of his prior service of 10 years and six months under the Mahatma Gandhi University, th
Eligibility for promotion in academic institutions requires compliance with specific UGC criteria, including submission of a satisfactory Self-Assessment Report and recognized publications.
Timely submission of academic qualifications and publications is essential for faculty promotions under UGC regulations; delays in challenges to university decisions can invalidate claims.
power of the Government to make laws determining the service conditions of its employees or amend such laws cannot confer them the power to apply such laws differently to similarly situated persons.
The judgment established the principle that ad hoc service is eligible for counting under UGC Regulations for promotion and emphasized the requirement for authorities to provide substantive reasons f....
Previous regular service in academic positions must be considered for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme, and universities cannot unjustly require specific documents from prior employment.
A qualified lecturer's previous service should be recognized for promotion under UGC's Career Advancement Scheme despite prior deployment.
The court upheld the University's decision not to count prior service as Academic Consultants for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme, affirming compliance with UGC regulations.
Promotion eligibility under UGC regulations must be honored, and government financial concerns cannot unjustly hinder rightful promotions.
Lecturers who meet eligibility criteria for promotion must be granted placement in Selection Grade, regardless of subsequent pay revision orders.
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
