Back
2020 Supreme(Sikk) 71
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JJ.
The Sikkim University, Represented through its Registrar, Sikkim University, Tadong, East Sikkim - Appellants
Versus
Dr. Vaidyanathan Krishna Ananth & Anr. - Respondent
W.A. No. 02 of 2018
Decided On : 27-02-2020
For the Appellants :Dr. Doma T. Bhutia and Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for additional criteria for promotion under CAS to be duly notified and approved, and the importance of considering the eligibility of the petitioner based on the regulations in force at the time of application.
Headnote:
CAS - Career Advancement Scheme - 2nd, 3rd, and 4th amendment of UGC Regulations, 2010 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the UGC Regulations, 2010, including the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th amendments, particularly focusing on Clause 6.4.8 and 6.0.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, and their interpretations. The court highlighted the power of the university to prescribe additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment, including promotion, and the requirement for such additional criteria to be duly notified and approved. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the eligibility of the petitioner based on the regulations in force at the time of application. The judgment dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner raised a grievance regarding non-consideration of his case under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) of the Sikkim University from Stage-IV to Stage-V, i.e., from Associate Professor to Professor, based on the UGC Regulations, 2010. The core controversy revolved around the additional norm requiring experience of guiding research at Doctoral Level, and the eligibility of the petitioner based on the regulations in force at the time of application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition did not suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties and that the additional criterion stated to have been laid down by the University was non-est in law as it was not duly notified and approved. The court directed the University to consider the promotion of the petitioner from Stage 4 to Stage 5 in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010, and any other relevant provisions, within sixty days.
Issues: The issues before the court included non-joinder of necessary parties, the competence of the university to prescribe new criteria for promotion under CAS, the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion, and the impact of relieving the petitioner for another posting on his rights to promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition did not suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties and that the additional criterion laid down by the University was non-est in law. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the eligibility of the petitioner based on the regulations in force at the time of application.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. The court directed the University to consider the promotion of the petitioner from Stage 4 to Stage 5 in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010, and any other relevant provisions, within sixty days.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 47 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 as writ petitioner was allowed.
2. We have heard Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have also heard respondent no.1, who has appeared in-person, and Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
3. The writ petitioner essentially raised a grievance regarding non-consideration of his case under Career Advancement Scheme (for short, CAS) of the Sikkim University from Stage-IV to Stage-V, i.e., from Associate Professor to Professor. According to him, though he fulfilled the eligibility criteria in terms of University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (for short, UGC Regulations), his case was not considered.
4. For the present, to understand the core controversy, suffice it is to say that an e-mail was sent by the Registrar of the appellant University to the writ petitioner in connection with his CAS application informing him that though on scrutiny it was found that while he qualified on all other points, the Committee had observed that he had not attached with the application any documentary proof establishing the fact of his supervising award of Ph.D. and, accordingly, requesting him to send scanned copy of any documentary evidence of successfully supervising Ph.D. at the earliest. Stand of the University is that it is permissible for the university to prescribe norms over and above the UGC Regulations and that accordingly, additional criterion was laid down to the effect that Associate Professors shall be considered for promotion to the post of Professors under CAS only after they acquire the experience of guiding research scholars of Doctoral Level. The writ petitioner disputed laying down of the additional norm.
5. It will be relevant to note that 2nd, 3rd and 4th amendment of UGC Regulations, which are relevant for the purpose of consideration of this appeal, came into effect on 13.06.2013, 04.05.2016 and 11.07.2016, respectively.
6. By the 3rd amendment of the UGC Regulations, 2010, amongst others, the existing Tables I to IX under Appendix-III of UGC Regulations, and the 2nd amendment regarding computation of Academic Performance Indicator (API) score for appointment and promotion of teachers and other academic staff in the universities/colleges/institutions were amended and substituted by the revised Tables I to IX appended to 3rd amendment regulations.
7. Clause 6.4.8 of UGC Regulations, 2010 reads as follows:
6.4.8. Associate Professor completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher grade (stage 5), subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in Table I-III of Appendix IV stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that no teachers other than those with a Ph.D. shall be promoted or appointed as Professor.
8. Clause 6.0.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 was amended and substituted by the 2nd amendment with the following clause:
6.0.2. The Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleg
