IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Dr. Moti Lal Bhat – Petitioner
Versus
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture, Science and Technology, SKUAST (K) Shalimar Campus, Srinagar and Anr. – Respondents
SWP No.1030/2016
Decided On : 22-03-2022
Service Law-Promotion-Post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)-Petitioner who had completed 8 years of requisite service required under pre-modified procedure for Career Advancement for teachers, which was in vogue prior to 26.06.2002, was entitled to his promotion to post of Professor with effect from 27.07.1998 in terms of Note (a)-On the ground of parity also, case of petitioner was required to be considered under pre-modified Career Advancement Scheme as it existed at the time of amendment in University statutes which was made vide notification No. 1/2002 dated 26.06.2002. (Paras 11 and 12)
Result-Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Kumar, J.-The petitioner, who retired as Professor from Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture, Science and Technology, Srinagar [“SKUAST-K”] has filed this petition seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:
(b) Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent-University to grant promotion to the petitioner as Professor cum Chief Scientist (Agronomy) w.e.f. 28.07.1998.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he, while being in the service of SKUAST-K was promoted as Assistant Professor, Agronomy on 10.11.1982 and thereafter, as Associate Professor vide University Order No. 478 (Estt.) of 1989 dated 26.08.1989. It is pleaded that, with a view to provide for Career Advancement of Teachers in the State and Central Agricultural Universities, detailed guidelines with criteria came to be issued by the Indian Council of Agriculture and Research (ICAR) vide its F. No. 21 (10)/99-PER/V dated 19.07.2000. Paragraph 2.5 of the said guidelines deals with promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). It is submitted that, with a view to update the SKUAST statutes so as to bring them in accord with the CAS guidelines issued by ICAR, the University vide Notification No. 01 of 2002 dated 26.06.2002 effected necessary amendments in the statutes. It is pleaded that paragraph 2.5 of the CAS promulgated in the year 2000 which was later embodied in the University statutes provides that, apart from the sanctioned strength of professors which is required to be filled up by direct recruitment through All India Advertisement, the promotions are also required to be made by the Selection Committee to the post of Professor from a person who is an Associate Professor or has worked as such for the last eight (8) years. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner, who came to be promoted as Associate Professor on 26.08.1989 was confirmed on the said post by the University vide its Order No.239 (Estt.) of 1992 dated 03.06.1992. The petitioner submits that though, he was promoted as Associate Professor in SKAUST-K, yet, in view of the disturbed conditions prevailing in the Valley in the year 1989-90, the petitioner had to migrate from the Valley and, therefore, his services were kept at the disposal of SKAUST-J, R.S. Pura vide Order No. ADR/Acd/Migrant/91-92/2392 dated 31.10.1991. The petitioner was, accordingly, adjusted in the SKAUST-J in Agronomy Division. The petitioner claims that he having put more than eight years of service as an Associate Professor was entitled to the promotion to the post of Professor under CAS adopted by the University. The petitioner was not given the benefit of CAS despite he having made several representations in this regard to the respondent-University.
3. Having failed to persuade the respondent-University to accord him promotion to the post of Professor under CAS from the due date, the petitioner filed SWP No. 1748/2005 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondent-University to accord promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor under CAS in terms of notification No. 01/2002 dated 26.06.2002 whereby the necessary amendments to the University statutes to embody the CAS promulgated by ICAR were effected. During the pendency of said writ petition, the petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.05.2006. The said writ petition was ultimately decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 11.09.2009 and a direction was issued to the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion under CAS. With a view to comply with the judgment passed by this Court on 11.09.2009, the respondent-University issued the impugned order
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotion to the post of Professor (Stage-5) should relate back to the date of eligibility if the candidate is successful, as provided in Clau....
University must implement Screening Committee's promotion recommendation confirming API eligibility pursuant to judicial directions; denial thereafter is arbitrary. Notional promotion granted from el....
It is not necessary for Selection Committee to give reasons for its conclusion, suffice to state, Supreme Court had given a finding to that effect in cases where the rules do not contemplate so. Ther....
Promotions to the post of Professor must comply with U.G.C. regulations requiring eight years of service as Reader, and failure to provide a hearing before annulling promotions violates principles of....
Promotion of teachers must relate back to the date of eligibility per UGC regulations, not just the interview date.
The main legal principle established is that UGC Regulations, 2010 have prospective effect and candidates who fulfill eligibility criteria before the enforcement of the regulations can be considered ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.