The main legal point established is that the date of promotion should align with the date of eligibility unless the candidate falls under specific exceptions.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, primarily, to seek the preponement of his date of promotion from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor (Forestry) in the respondent-Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, from 06.03.2020 – when he joined the said post, to 02.09.2017.

2. The short compass, in which the present case falls, is that the petitioner became Associate Professor on 02.09.2014. On completion of three years, he became eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor in the relevant subject, in terms of the Regulations issued by the UGC, being the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, framed by the University Grants Commission. The said Regulations, inter alia, provide in Regulation 6.3.12(a) that “If a candidate applies for promotion on completion of the minimum eligibility period and is successful, the date of promotion will be from that of minimum period of eligibility.”

3. Though, the petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Professor, under the aforesaid Regulations, on 02.09.2017, his case was considered only after the coming into force of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018, which were enforced vide notification dated 18.07.2018. Even under the said Regulations, there is a pari materia provision in Regulation 6.3(VI)(i). Insofar as, the said Regulation is relevant, the same reads as follows :-

“i) If a candidate applies for promotion on completion of the minimum eligibility period and is successful, the date of promotion shall be from that of minimum period of eligibility.”

4. The petitioner has placed on record the consideration of his case by the Screening Committee on 21.12.2019, which found him eligible for interview. The petitioner was, accordingly, interviewed on 23.01.2020, and he was found eligible for promotion to the post of Professor in the Department of Forestry. However, when it came to the date of promotion under CAS, the Committee recommended “not from due date, but the date of joining”. Consequently, the petitioner was given promotion from the date of his joining, which is 06.03.2020. By placing reliance on the aforesaid Regulations of the years 2010 and 2018, which, as we have already seen are pari materia, the petitioner claims that the Selection Committee could not have altered the date, from which the petitioner became entitled to be promoted under the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2018, and the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Professor with effect from the date of his eligibility, i.e. 02.09.2017.

5. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The stand of the respondent-University is that the Selection Committee is entitled to determine the date, from which a promotee would get the promotion. The respondents have also placed reliance on Regulation 16.3, which deals with the aspect of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and teachers promoted under the CAS. The said Regulation reads as follows :-

“16.3 Inter-se seniority between the direct recruited and teachers promoted under CAS

The inter-se seniority of a direct recruit shall be determined with reference to the date of joining and for the teachers promoted under the CAS with reference to the date of eligibility as indicated in the recommendations of the selection committee of the respective candidates. The rules and regulations of the respective Central/State Government shall apply, for all other matters of seniority.”

6. We have heard learned counsels, and considered their rival submissions.

7. On a plain reading of the Regulations, both of the year 2