Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 124
[Citation : 2011(4) RLW 3278 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
K.K. Bora (Dr.) Vs. Rajasthan Agricultural University (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
K.K. Bora (Dr.)
Versus
Rajasthan Agricultural University Bikaner & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8654 of 2008, decided on 14.02.2011
M.R. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Hemant Jain, for Petitioner;
Manish Shishodia, for Respondent University;
R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General
Headnote:UGC Act, 1956, Secs. 26(1)(e) and (g) read with Sec. 14 — Requirement of vacant post for promotion under career Advancement Scheme from Associate Professor — Petitioner having been found eligible for grant of promotion under CAS was denied the benefit for want of post — Entitlement to claim benefits from the date of recommendations — Held — It is a personal promotion scheme and no vacant post is required for grant of this benefit — As per UGC Regulations, 2000, clause 2.5.0., the promotion offered under the scheme is in addition to the sanctioned posts — The restrictions imposed by State Govt. is violative of the scheme in which the State Govt. directed the Universities to implement the same — Entitled to the benefits w.e.f. the date his senior was granted this benefit. (Paras 20 to 25)
Writ petition allowed.
;w-th-lh- vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 26¼1½¼e½ ,oa ¼g½ lifBr /kkjk 14 & ,lksfl;sV izksQslj ds in ls dsfj;j ,Mokal Ldhe ds rgr inksUufr gsrq fjDr in dh okaNuh;rk & izkFkhZ dks lh-,-,l- ds rgr inksUufr gsrq vgZd ik;s tkus ds ckn mls fjDr in ds vHkko esa bl inksUufr dk ykHk nsus ls badkj fd;k x;k & vuq'kalk dh frfFk ls mDr ifjykHk dk nkok djus dk gd & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g ,d O;fDrxr inksUufr dh Ldhe gS vr% bldk ifjykHk iznku djus gsrq fdlh fjDr in gksus dh vko';drk ugha & ;w-th-lh- jsxwys'ku 2000] [k.M 2-5-0 ds vuqlkj] bl Ldhe ds rgr iznku fd;k tkus okyk izeks'ku eatwj inksa ds vfrfjDr gS & jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/kjksfir fucZa/ku Lo;a ljdkj }kjk bl Ldhe dks ykxw djus gsrq fo'ofo|ky;ksa dks fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dk mYya?ku gS & ftl frfFk ls mlds ofj"B tu dk ;g ifjykHk iznku fd;k x;k Fkk ml frfFk ls og bl ykHk dks ikus dk ik= gSA
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 20 ls 25½
Case Law Referred (Para No.)
Dr. Nand Kishore Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7986/2006, decided on 24.04.2007) 7
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand ((2008) 10 SCC 1) 24
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed initially on the post of Assistant Professor, being eligible and qualified for the said post, in the year 1982 in the Udaipur University, Udaipur. Petitioner is science graduate and is also possessing the Ph.D. in Botany subject. The present University was established after bifurcation of the Agricultural Wing from the University of Udaipur and, now, the petitioner is employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.
3. Case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor was considered and he was accorded promotion in the year 1991 and, at present, he is continuing as such. University Grants Commission while exercising powers conferred by clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26, read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 promulgated a scheme known as Career Advancement Scheme (for short, to be called “the CAS” hereinafter) and same was published notification published in the month of March 2000. Vide Annex.-1 dated 19.05.2001 Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan conveyed the decision of the State Government to implement the CAS and, for the said purpose, all the Universities were advised to start immediately the process of adjudging the suitability of eligible teachers under the CAS. Further, it is directed by the State Government that a list of those eligible teachers who are found suitable by the Selection Committee in the order of their inter-se seniority may also be prepared and submitted to the Chancellor's office.
4. The respondent University initiated the process for granting benefit of CAS in the year 2001 and, in response to said initiation, the petitioner applied and he was called for interview vide letter dated 29.09.2001 and he was directed to appear for interview on 05.10.2001. The Selection Committee considered the candidature of the petitioner and recommended his name for providing the benefit under the CAS. It is worthwhile to observe that the petitioner was having good academic career and was eligible for being promoted on the post of Professor, therefore, after interview he was found suitable for promotion under the CAS.
5. The Board of Management considered the recommendations of the Selection Committee in its 48th meeting held on 20.10.2001 and, in the said meeting, it was resolved that notification of the UGC dated March 2000 adopted be confirmed. Further, the Vice Chancellor and Chairman of the Board of Management read out the name of the selected candidatures out of the panel recommended by the Selection Committee. The House unanimously approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee but approval of the recommendations were made only to the extent of posts as sanctioned by the State Government.
6. Contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was selected by the Selection Committee and his name was recommended as envisaged by the UGC while floating the said Scheme but benefit under the CAS was not given to the petitioner on account of the embargo put by the State Government in relation to the number of posts. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner filed a representation to the State Government and, upon representation, the Vice Chancellor was called upon to offer his comments. In return, the Vice Chancellor wrote a letter dated 11.10.2002, in which, the Vice Chancellor categorically admitted that a professor can effectively give a conceptual inputs, generate resources and effectively monitor the impact of knowledge. Therefore, a
