Back
2003 Supreme(All) 2859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.K. RATHI, J.
R.N. Singh - Appellant
Versus
Prof. Y.C. Simhadri, Vice-Chancellor, B.H.U And Another - Respondents
C.M. Contempt Petition No. 2704 of 2001
Decided On : 08-05-2003
For the Appellant : Shailendra.
For the Respondent: V.K. Upadhyay.
The applicability of promotion schemes and the responsibility of university authorities in promotion decisions.
Headnote:
Contempt - Promotion Dispute - Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986 - Career Advancement Scheme - 5th Central Pay Commission - University Grant Commission - [Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, Career Advancement Scheme, 5th Central Pay Commission, University Grant Commission]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer at a university, sought promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme but was considered under the Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioner alleged contempt due to non-compliance with a court order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's representation for promotion was decided in accordance with the law and that the promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, was not applicable as it had been abolished. The court also held that the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar were not responsible for the decision and dismissed the contempt petition.
Issues: Dispute over promotion scheme applicability, alleged contempt of court order, responsibility of university authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion under the abolished Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, and that the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar were not responsible for the decision.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to file a fresh writ petition for clear direction on the applicable promotion scheme.
B.K. Rathi, J.
1. The Petitioner, Dr. R. N. Singh, who no doubt is highly qualified person was appointed as temporary Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, w.e.f. 31.8.1979. He was given substantive appointment w.e.f. 21.12.1981 and was confirmed on 1.4.1983. He was placed in senior scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 by resolution of Executive Council of the university dated 17.10.1989. The Petitioner applied for further promotion as Professor and Reader in Merit Promotion Scheme (In short "M.P.S.") by letter dated 13.2.2001. The same was not granted and, therefore, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21250 of 2001. The writ petition was disposed of finally on 25.5.2001 and the following order was passed:
Heard.
This petition is disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) preferably within eight weeks from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his representation has not been decided and, therefore, he filed the present contempt petition, on which the notices were issued. Various counter and rejoinder-affidavits were submitted. Ultimately, Prof. P. Ramchandra Rao, the present Vice-Chancellor of the university was impleaded as opposite party No. 3. He has filed his own counter-affidavit alleging that the representation of the Petitioner has been decided on 9.1.2003 in the meeting of the Executive Council. The copy of the decision has also been annexed with the counter-affidavit. The delay in taking the decision has been explained and has been deeply regretted by the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, it is not proper to punish the opposite party for contempt for not taking decision within the period allowed by this Court.
3. It need not be said that the decision has gone against the Petitioner. Therefore, the contention of Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that it has not been correctly decided and is not in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the writ petition, therefore, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 is guilty of contempt.
4. I have already quoted the order of this Court passed in the writ petition. The only direction was to decide the representation Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The copy of the said representation, Annexure-10 to the writ petition was not filed along with the contempt petition. However, it has been filed with the rejoinder-affidavit dated 24.3.2003 as Annexure-R.A.-1. In this representation request has been made for consideration of promotion under, Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. It has been argued by Sri Shailendra that the decision filed by the opposite party No. 3 show that the promotion of the Petitioner was not considered under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. It was considered under Career Advancement Scheme (In short "C.A.S."). It has, therefore, contended that there is no compliance of the order of this Court passed in the writ petition.
5. I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and V.K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the opposite parties at length and have perused the record.
6. It appears that absolutely no controversy was decided in the writ petition. The only direction was to decide the representation, Annexure-10 to the writ petition. What was representation was not at all considered in the writ petition. According to the rejoinder-affidavit dated 24.3.2003, the said representation is Annexure-1 of that affidavit and is for promotion under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. It was not decided in the writ petition whether the Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, in which the promotion has been claimed is applicable to the Petitioner, nor there is direction that the promotion of the Petitioner should be considered in Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986.
7. The affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2, who is Registr
