IMPORTANT POINT
The U.G.C. Regulations, 2018 prevail over U.G.C. guidelines, and the Vice Chancellor could have exercised power under Section 7-C(5) to address the situation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Priyansh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission and Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- University.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court for two reliefs: (I) Promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'CAS') from the date he became entitled; and (II) for re-employment as a teacher in the department as per Regulation 2.1 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 (for short, 'U.G.C. Regulations, 2018') notified on 18th July, 2018.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Associate Professor in the faculty of Sanskrit Vidya Dharm Vigyan, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, became entitled to be considered for promotion as Professor in the University on 04.11.2021 under CAS of University Grants Commission (for short 'U.G.C.') vide Regulation 6.3 of U.G.C. Regulations, 2018.

4. Accordingly, for first relief, petitioner moved an application before the Vice Chancellor for consideration of his candidature for promotion under the CAS on 04.11.2021 itself which got admittedly received in the Selection and Assessment Cell of the B.H.U. University on 05.01.2022. However, nothing further happened in the matter and petitioner's application for promotion under the CAS remained pending. Since the petitioner's claim was not being considered for promotion, he made representation and ultimately retired from the faculty of the University upon attaining age of superannuation on 31.12.2022.

5. After retirement, petitioner applied for re-employment i.e. his second relief, as per the provisions contained under the Regulation 2.1 of U.G.C. Regulations, 2018 but when his application for re-employment was also not given any consideration, he filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ-A No.11409 of 2023 in which a direction was issued to the Vice Chancellor to dispose of matter of his claim that he would raise in his representation. Petitioner, accordingly, made a representation on 11.08.2023 which came to be ultimately rejected by the Vice Chancellor of the University vide his order dated 09.10.2023, now impugned in the present petition.

6. Regarding promotion under the CAS, the argument advanced is that petitioner's claim to be promoted as Professor got matured on 04.11.2021 and, therefore, applying the procedure prescribed for under Regulation 6.3 of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2018, petitioner's claim ought to have been considered. He submits that the University failed to accord due consideration to the claim of the petitioner. It was University's fault for which petitioner cannot be penalised and accordingly, cannot be made to suffer.

7. In support of his second relief for re-employment as Teacher in the University, he heavily relied upon Regulation 2.1 of Regulations, 2018 to contend that be it Assistant Professor or Associate Professor or Professor, a teacher of any of these categories was entitled to be reemployed provided there existed vacancy in the department. He, thus, submits that Vice Chancellor manifestly erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on both counts.

8. Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the University, on the contrary, argues that there being no executive council functioning in the University since November, 2020, claim of the petitioner even after being matured to be considered for promotion as Professor, could not be given consideration as every such appointment and promotion was required to be approved by the executive council in the first instance before consequential effective order was passed by the Vice Chancellor. He submitted that executive council of the University was a statutory body and vested with all such powers, in absence of which, and there being no order by the competent government authorising Vice Chancellor to pass orders or to act on