Back
2007 Supreme(All) 1003
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pradeep Kant, Pradeep Kant, Rajiv Sharma , Rajiv Sharma
SESHU LAVANIA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 13 April 2007
W. P. No. 833 (S/b) of 2004
L.P.MISHRA, P.C.AGRAWAL, SANDEEP DIXIT,
A candidate who is ineligible for the promoted post would have no locus standi to challenge the promotion or the consideration of the promotion to the next higher post of any eligible candidate.
Headnote:
CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEME - PROMOTION TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR - ELIGIBILITY - COUNTING OF SERVICE - EQUIVALENCE OF SERVICE - INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - LOCUS STANDI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Dr. (Smt.) Seshu Lavania and Dr. Pradeep Kumar Misra, who were appointed as Lecturer in Botany in Lucknow University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the University) through one and the same selection with effect from November 25,1985, on which post they were confirmed, vide order dated 22. 2. 1988 with effect from 15. 1. 1988 and were later on given Senior Scale of Lecturer (Rs. 3,000-5,000), vide order dated 26. 8. 1991 with effect from 25. 11. 1990 under the Career Advancement Scheme, as per G. O. dated 7. 1. 1989 and thereafter were promoted on the post of Reader through a selection committee in the year 1999, but the Selection Grade (Rs. 12,000-18,300) was given to them with effect from 25. 11. 1998, i. e. , after 8 years of service in the Senior Scale, as per the rules, feeling aggrieved by the proposed promotion on the post of Professor of respondent No. 5, Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that the petitioners are senior to the respondent in the cadre of Reader and also in the cadre of Lecturer, therefore, the promotion of the respondent to the next higher grade/cadre of Professor without considering the case of the petitioners is prejudicial to their interest and they will become Junior by such promotion and that the respondent is not at all eligible for being granted the promotion on the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, as such the action of the University is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioners being conscious of the factual and legal position that in case the respondents previous service as Junior Plant Physiologist under the I. C. A. R. Project is allowed to be treated as equivalent service to that of the Lecturer in the University or that the grant of five years extraordinary leave with full pay remains unchallenged, the respondent would be eligible for consideration of his promotion on the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme/feeder Cadre Scheme, have chosen to challenge the orders by means of which the respondent was given the benefit of Senior Lecturers Scale and also his promotion on the post of Reader besides alleging that in terms of the relevant Government order dated 7th January, 1989, the respondent cannot be held to be eligible for promotion unless he has put in 8 years of service as Reader and would not become eligible merely because he has to his credit the service of 17 years length including on the post of Lecturer and Lecturer in the Senior Scale or in Selection Grade.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme? 2. Whether the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the promotion of the respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the respondent was eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme. The Government orders dated 30th June, 1992 and that of 13th March, 2001, as amended/substituted by Government order dated 3rd May, 2001, prescribed the qualifying service for being eligible for being promoted under the Feeding Cadre Scheme to the post of Reader as well as Professor which qualification and the criteria have been clearly and specifically defined. The respondent became entitled for promotion on 3rd May, 2001 but since no selection committee in Botany was held between 3rd May, 2001 and 28th November, 2001, when the Feeder Cadre Scheme was withdrawn, he was given the benefit under the directive of the State Government dated 30. 1. 2004, which extended the benefit of the said Scheme for those who became eligible arid entitled for promotion up-to 28th November, 2001. 2. No, the petitioners did not have the locus standi to challenge the promotion of the respondent. The petitioners are neither eligible nor they have been able to establish that the respondent was not eligible for promotion under the relevant Government orders, under the Career Advancement Scheme/feeder Cadre Scheme and, therefore, the petitioners do not have any locus standi to challenge the said promotion.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioner Dr. (Smt.) Seshu Lavania and Dr. Pradeep Kumar Misra, who were appointed as Lecturer in Botany in Lucknow University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the University) through one and the same selection with effect from November 25,1985, on which post they were confirmed, vide order dated 22. 2. 1988 with effect from 15. 1. 1988 and were later on given Senior Scale of Lecturer (Rs. 3,000-5,000), vide order dated 26. 8. 1991 with effect from 25. 11. 1990 under the Career Advancement Scheme, as per G. O. dated 7. 1. 1989 and thereafter were promoted on the post of Reader through a selection committee in the year 1999, but the Selection Grade (Rs. 12,000-18,300) was given to them with effect from 25. 11. 1998, i. e. , after 8 years of service in the Senior Scale, as per the rules, feeling aggrieved by the proposed promotion on the post of Professor of respondent No. 5, Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that the petitioners are senior to the respondent in the cadre of Reader and also in the cadre of Lecturer, therefore, the promotion of the respondent to the next higher grade/cadre of Professor without considering the case of the petitioners is prejudicial to their interest and they will become Junior by such promotion and that the respondent is not at all eligible for being granted the promotion on the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, as such the action of the University is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. In short, the proposed promotion of the respondent on the post of Professor has compelled the petitioners to approach the Court for restraining the University from making any such promotion.
2. In support of the aforesaid main relief, the petitioners have not only pleaded that the respondent was ineligible, as per the relevant Government orders under the Career Advancement Scheme but also that he was wrongly granted the Senior Scale under the Career Advancement Scheme, vide resolution of the Executive Council dated 3. 12. 1994 and that he was also illegally and wrongly granted extraordinary leave for a period of five years, i. e. , for the period commencing from 1. 4. 1995 to 31. 3. 2000 with full pay by the University without the concurrence of the State Government and, therefore, neither the respondent could have been granted the Senior Scale of Lecturer on the date when it was granted nor his five years break in service could have been treated to be continuous by granting extraordinary leave with full pay, which is not in accordance with the rules, which continuity having been given for the purpose of grant of Senior Scale, makes the aforesaid grant illegal. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondent, who had worked as Junior Plant Physiologist allegedly under I. C. A. R. Coordinated Research Project from 4. 1. 1983 to 9. 9. 1988, was not eligible for being considered for promotion on the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, as this period of service could not be counted in the University service for the purpose of such promotion.
3. The respondent, in response, challenged the very maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that admittedly the petitioners themselves were not eligible for being considered for promotion on the post of Professor and, therefore, an ineligible candidate cannot challenge the selection process or the selection of a candidate who has been found eligible by the university for promotion to the next higher post of Professor in the University. His submission is that the petitioners cannot challenge either his consideration for promotion nor the actual promotion, they themselves being ineligible for being considered for the post.
4. Refuting the pleadings of the petitioners in regard to the eligibility of the respondent, it is being vehem
