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.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioners are working as Assistant Professors under the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University. The writ petition has been filed to quash Exts.P10 and P12 to P14 to the extent the University has decided not to reckon the prior service of the petitioners as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion/placement under the Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioners have also sought certain other incidental reliefs.

2. The petitioners state that they were inducted into service as Academic Consultants (on deputation basis) from the State Government service in the year 2011. They were appointed as Assistant Professors on regular basis on 07.03.2015. The petitioners state that in the year 2013, another batch of temporary Teachers were appointed as Assistant Professors. They were also doing the same job and taking the same salary.

3. As per Ext.P1 UGC Regulations, the prior service of the petitioners as Academic Consultants is eligible to be counted along with their regular service as Assistant Professors for the purpose of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). However, as per Ext.P10, the University decided to deny the benefit of counting prior service, to the petitioners.

4. The petitioners would submit that other similarly situated Assistant Professors approached this Court and their request was granted by this Court as per Ext.P11 judgment. The University thereafter issued Exts.P12 to P14 stating that the Selection Committee has selected the petitioners as Academic Consultants which was not in accordance with the UGC Norms. Hence, the University sought Government's advice. The Government has no role to decide the issue, contend the petitioners.

5. The petitioners state that University is the ultimate authority in the matter of appointment and service conditions of Teachers. They are to be governed by the University Act and the Statutes. To the extent they are not inconsistent with UGC Regulations, the UGC Regulations will govern grant of CAS promotion. Ext.P21 is without jurisdiction. Ext.P10 decision to the extent is against the petitioners is vitiated by hostile discrimination. Exts.P10, P12 and P14 are violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, contended the petitioners.

6. Respondents 4 and 5 filed and counter affidavit. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the University invited applications to the post of Academic Consultants. The petitioners came on deputation as Academic Consultants from various Government Departments. The petitioners were given provisional appointment as Assistant Professors as per Exts.P5 to P7. The petitioners sought absorption as Assistant Professors. Their claim for absorption was rejected in judgment in W.P.(C) No.15580/2014 which decision was upheld in W.A. No.108/2019.

7. The petitioners sought to count their past service as Academic Consultants to be counted for promotion under the CAS. The Committee constituted by the University for selection to the post of Academic Consultants and Selection Committee formed for selection of Assistant Professors are different. The University has therefore sought clarification from the Government in the matter of counting of past service of the petitioners.

8. The 2^nd respondent-Secretary to Government filed an affidavit stating that the Higher Education Department has no role or control over the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University. The University has not sought any advice in this regard.

9. The additional 6^th respondent-Secretary to Animal Husbandry Department filed a counter affidavit. The additional 6^th respondent stated that the appointment of petitioners as Academic Consultants does not satisfy the criteria prescribed by UGC norms. In the selection of Academic Consultants, candidates who did not possess qualification for appointment as Teachers as per UGC norms, were also included. The 6^th respondent asserted that as per the UGC Regulations, 2010, the petitioners are not entit