Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4524
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
Dr. Parimal Roy
Versus
The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Sciences University & Another
W.P.No.13540 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2009
Decided On : 20-10-2010
For the Petitioner:R. Syed Mustafa, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, S. Vijayakumar, Advocate. R2, Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Statutes, particularly Clause 13(2)(h), and the influence of the Board's decision on the court's analysis and conclusion.
Headnote:
EOL - Career Advancement Scheme - Clause 13(2)(h) of the Statutes - 11.04.2002, 25.06.2004 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Clause 13(2)(h) of the Statutes, the decision of the Board of Management, and the impugned order dated 25.06.2004. The judgment highlights the legal provisions related to counting EOL for Career Advancement and the influence of the Board's decision on the court's analysis and conclusion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to count the period of Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL) availed for Post Doctoral Specialized Training as qualifying service for pension and Career Advancement Scheme. The first respondent passed an order counting the EOL period for the purpose of Career Advancement. However, the first respondent later cancelled the earlier orders, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition to quash the impugned order and seek Career Advancement as Professor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was contrary to the decision of the Board and deprived the petitioner of the benefits conferred under the earlier order without due process. The court also rejected the first respondent's plea of delay in filing the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Statutes, the decision of the Board, the impugned order, and the petitioner's entitlement to Career Advancement based on the EOL period for Post Doctoral Specialized Training.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was passed contrary to the decision of the Board and without affording the petitioner due process. The court also rejected the first respondent's plea of delay in filing the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the first respondent-University to confer Career Advancement as Professor with effect from the date of eligibility as per the earlier proceeding, with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of pay, and other benefits.
1. The petitioner joined the first respondent-University as Assistant Professor on 16.02.1989. He was promoted as Associate Professor on 07.08.1997, after proper selection.
2. In the year 1999, the petitioner sought permission from the first respondent-University to undergo Post Doctoral Specialized Training in the University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. The first respondent granted permission vide the order dated 11.03.1999 for a period of two years to undergo the Post Doctoral Specialized Training at USA.
3. The petitioner successfully completed the Post Doctoral Specialized Training Programme within the stipulated period and rejoined the first respondent-University on 11.04.2001. Thereafter, he made a representation on 19.03.2002 to the first respondent-University to treat the period of Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL) availed for Post Doctoral Specialized Training as qualifying service to count for pension as well as Career Advancement scheme. The first respondent passed an order dated 11.04.2002 counting the period of Extra-Ordinary Leave from 06.05.1999 to 10.04.2001, for Post Doctoral Fellowship-Specialized Training in the University of Alabama in USA, as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and also for elevation to next cadre in the Career Advancement Scheme.
4. Whiles so, the first respondent-University passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2004 cancelling the earlier orders issued to individual teachers permitting them to include the Extra-Ordinary Leave without pay and allowances availed by them for prosecuting Higher Scientific and Technical Studies including Ph.D., as qualifying service for the purpose of elevation under Career Advancement Scheme.
5. On completion of 8 years of service as Associate Professor, the petitioner is entitled to avail the Career Advancement Scheme and to move to the post of Professor. The first respondent issued a notification dated 31.12.2005 calling for applications from the qualified candidates through Head of the Department for consideration for Career Advancement of Professor for the year 2006. The petitioner applied for the same.
6. One Dr.Sree Kumar, Assistant Professor underwent Ph.D., course availing the Extra-Ordinary Leave and he was aggrieved over the order dated 25.06.2004, referred to above. Hence, he filed W.P.No.1620 of 2006 before this Court and questioned the said order dated 25.06.2004 of the first respondent-University. This Court granted interim stay on 23.01.2006.
7. In these circumstances, the first respondent sent interview card dated 02.06.2006 to petitioner to appear for interview on 15.06.2006 relating to Career Advancement to Professor for the year 2006. He participated in the interview. However his result was not published and the same was put in a sealed cover.
8. The petitioner also applied for the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme for the year 2007. He was called for interview by the letter dated 15.06.2007 issued by the first respondent-University to appear for interview on 25.06.2007. Accordingly, he appeared for interview. The selection was withheld, as in the case of previous year.
9. In the year 2008, the petitioner was promoted as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, as he completed 8 years of service, without taking into account the Extra-Ordinary Leave of 2 years.
10. This Court allowed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1620 of 2006 on 19.02.2007. Thereafter, the first respondent-University preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.775 of 2008. On 18.08.2008, the first respondent-University submitted before this Court that the authorities decided to treat the period of EOL availed by the respondent therein as qualifying service for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and the first respondent-University did not wish to press the appeal. In those circumstances, recording the statement, the Writ Appeal was closed.
11. Later, the fist respondent-University moved a Modification Petition in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.A.No.
