A Physical Training Instructor, classified as academic staff under amended bylaws, is entitled to Career Advancement Scheme benefits despite prior designation as non-teaching, based on continuity of terms post-university transition.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. By this common judgment, we propose to decide the present writ petition and connected Writ-A No.14778 of 2019. Writ-A No.6849 of 2022 has been heard as the leading case. Facts shall be noticed from the leading case.

2. This petition is directed against an order of the Vice Chancellor, Harcourt Butler Technical University, Kanpur dated 19.04.2022, to the extent alone that it excludes the petitioner and his Department wholesomely from the benefit of consideration for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (for short, 'CAS'). The petitioner has further prayed that this Court do issue a mandamus, commanding the Vice Chancellor to consider his case for extension of the benefit of CAS, in the same manner, as in the case of teaching staff of other Departments of the University.

3. The Harcourt Butler Technical University, Kanpur (for short, 'the University') was established by an Act of the State Legislature, called the Uttar Pradesh Harcourt Butler Technical University Act , 2016 (U.P. Act No.11 of 2016) (for short, 'the Act of 2016'). Prior to its incorporation, the University had a predecessor establishment, called the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur (for short, 'the Institute'). The Institute was affiliated to the Kanpur University. The affairs of the Institute were controlled and regulated by a Society, called the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute (Kanpur) Society (for short, 'the Society'). The Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and had its bylaws to manage its affairs, including the Institute.

4. The petitioner applied for the post of a Physical Training Instructor advertised by the Institute vide advertisement dated 27.01.2006. In due course, he was selected and appointed as a Physical Training Instructor with the Institute vide letter of appointment dated 18.01.2007. At the time, the petitioner was selected and appointed, the bylaws of the Institute included the post of the Physical Training Instructor in the cadre of the academic staff. There were broadly five cadres of staff serving the Institute. These were – (a) academic and administrative; (b) academic; (c) teaching supporting; (d) technical; and, (e) administrative non-teaching. A moreful reference to the relevant bylaw, defining the posts included within the cadre of the academic staff and the other cadres, shall be made later in this judgment.

5. According to the petitioner, he joined service on 03.02.2007 and his record is unblemished. The cause of action for the petitioner arose as he was denied the same benefits, including the pay-scale that were given to the other teaching staff of the University. Aggrieved by this denial, which the petitioner calls arbitrary, he instituted Writ-A No.14778 of 2019 (the connected writ petition) agains