The court clarified that the university has the power to prescribe additional criteria for screening candidates, but such criteria must be properly notified and circulated. The court also emphasized that the eligibility for promotion should be determined based on the UGC Regulations in force at the time of eligibility, and not at the time of interview or decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The grievance of the Petitioner pivots around the legality of his non-promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter ‘CAS’), from Stage 4 to Stage 5, viz. from Associate Professor to Professor, despite fulfilment of eligibility criteria in terms of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 (for short ‘UGC Regulations, 2010’). The reliefs sought for by the Petitioner, inter alia, are a direction to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to complete the process of his promotion from Stage 4 to Stage 5 as per the UGC Regulations, 2010. To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to consider his Application for promotion under the 3rd amendment (of 4th May, 2016) of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and not under the 4th Amendment (of 11th July, 2016) thereof.

2. The facts summarised are that the Petitioner joined the Sikkim University, Gangtok, as an Associate Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in 9.3.2012 and continued in service as an Associate Professor, Department of History from 1.7.2013, as per Orders of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. On completion of three years as an Associate Professor in Stage 4 on 30.6.2016, he accrued the requisite credit points as per the Academic Performance Indicator (for short ‘API’) based Performance Based Appraisal System (for short ‘PBAS’) methodology, provided in Table I-III, Appendix-IV of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and was thus eligible for appointment and designation as Professor from 1.7.2016. Consequently, he submitted his Application in terms of the 3rd amendment to the UGC Regulations, 2010, on 17.6.2016, in the prescribed format, for promotion under CAS from Stage 4 to Stage 5, along with evidence of API score. In response, he received a letter from the Respondents No. 1 and 2, dated 27.2.2017 requesting him to resubmit the application as the earlier Application could not be located. In compliance thereof, he resubmitted his Application on 1.3.2017 along with all necessary documents, duly received by the Respondents No.1 and 2. Pursuant thereto, he received an e-mail on 18.5.2017 from the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (for short ‘IQAC’) of the University, requesting submission of his application as per the format of UGC Regulations 4th Amendment and that his API Application would be computed accordingly. The Petitioner on 19.5.2017 responded that the request was fallacious as his date of eligibility (1.7.2016) preceded the enforcement of the 4th amendment (effective from 11.7.2016), apart from remonstrating that the e-mail was not from the appropriate authority which ought to be the Expert Committee. On 10.7.2017, an e-mail was received by him from the Respondent No.1 stating that he had qualified on all other points/requirements but required him to submit proof of Ph.D. awarded under his supervision to enable completion of interviews by early August, 2017. The Petitioner protested this as there was no stipulation in the UGC Regulations, 2010 of such a requirement and reminded the Respondent No.1 of the position taken by them in this regard in another matter vide a communication (Annexure P-13) sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation in April/May 2016, stating inter alia, that according to the UGC Regulations, 2010, the experience of guiding research at doctoral level is not required even for the post of Professor under CAS, leave alone for the post of Associate Professor, hence, arbitrary inclusion of a new criterion is improper. On 17.7.2017, he followed this up with another representation to the Respondent No.1 reiterating that the UGC Regulations of 2010 do not insist on a Ph.D. awarded under supervision of the person seeking promotion under CAS. Meanwhile, he learnt that meetings of various Selection Committees were held at New Delhi, from 31.7.2017, and in the week following thereto applications submitted much after the Petitioner’s Application, in some other departments, were