Back
1995 JLJ 403
(SUPREME COURT)
P.B. Sawant and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Rashmi Shrivastava (Dr.) v. Vikram University and others
C.A. No. 6001 of 1994; against the order of M.P. High Court passed in M.P. No. 1180 and 208 of 1989; Decided on 20.4.1995.
(i) The directly recruited Readers and Professors fill up the vacancies in the cadres of Readers and Professors for which direct recruitment is resorted to. While the promotees under the merit promotion scheme stand outside the cadre and fill no posts as such, since no posts are created. The promotion given to them are purely personal and the posts to which they are upgraded do not survive their service career. The posts vanish with the incumbent person like the shadow vanishing with the substance. Such a promotee rills up no vacancy in the promotional avenue since no post is available by promotion.
(ii) The directly recruited Readers and Professors are recruited pursuant to the only source of appointment contemplated by section 49 that is by way of direct recruitment. The promo tee Readers and Professors are appointed not in the cadre posts but under an entirely different scheme, namely merit promotion scheme. Even under this scheme, no posts as such are created. Those selected under the scheme are given personal posts which cease with their employment. In fact, the posts from which they arc promoted do not become vacant and none can be appointed to the said posts while they hold the higher posts.
(iii) Pay scales of promotee Professors and Readers are different from the pay scales of directly recruited Readers and Professors atleast after coming into operation of the career advancement scheme as seen earlier. To recapitulate for a direct recruit Readers revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.86 is Rs. 3,700 - 5,300 while the pay scale for promoted Reader is Rs. 3,000 - 5,000. Pay scale of a direct recruit Professor is Rs. 4,500 - 7,300 while the pay scale of a promotee Professor is Rs. 4,500 - 5,700. It is also to be noted that as per the letter of Under Secretary, Department of Education dated 1st January, 1989 the aforesaid difference in pay scales of merit promoted teachers is clearly brought out. It is of course true that as per the order of the Madhya Pradesh Govt. the pay scales of promotee Readers and Professors who were promoted prior to the enforcement of career advancement scheme were protected. But for such protection they would not have been entitled to pay scales of directly recruited Professors and Readers as revised under the scheme. This difference in the pay scales itself is a distinct feature so far as promo tees under the merit promotion scheme on the one hand and the directly recruited Readers, and Professors on the other hand are concerned.
(iv) The promotee Readers and Professors are not holding any officiating or even temporary post of Reader or Professor nor is there any temporary addition to the cadre strength of Readers and Professors.
(v) The work load of directly recruited Reader and Professor is different from the work load of promotee Reader or Professor for whom the work load of a Reader or Lecturer as the case may be would still have to be shared as no vacancies are created for being filled in the cadres from which such promotions are effected.
(vi) There is a qualitative difference in the process of selection of direct recruits under the scheme of section 49, as compared to the promotion of the merit promotees. Although for the latter the infrastructure of Selection Committee under section 49 may be made available, the criteria for their promotion are entirely distinct and different as envisaged by the guidelines governing the merit promotion scheme.
(vii) There is no question of promotee Reader or Professor being put on probation. There is further no question of confirming them in the concerned posts as they do not occupy any post as such in the promotional avenue. This is unlike to direct recruits. J.T. 1995 (I) SC 471 relied on. M.P. No. 2064 of 1989 overruled. W.P. No. 2558/88 distinguished. Order of High Court affirmed. [Paras 39 & 40
(2) Constitution of Indian Arts. 14 and 16(1) -- one class holding cadre post while another non-cadre post -- being two separate classes no question of violation in case of seniority arises. [Para 40
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts. 14 (1) and 16 -- promissory estoppel against spirit of these provisions -- is void and inoperative. [Para 43
(4) Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.) -- S. 35 (o) -- Vikram University -- statute 16 -- Jiwaji University -- statute 4 (12) -- merit promotee Reader or Professor though not having cadre post yet would hold such post till retirement -- he would have all benefits but of cadre post. Order of High Court modified. [Para 44
(5) Compensation -- claim on the basis of harassment not put before the High Court -- cannot be claimed in appeal when there is no factual basis for the same. [Para 46
¼1½ fo"ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 49 rFkk 35 ¼.k½ && ifjfu;e 16 && mikpkZ; vFkok vkpk;Z ds in ij lh/kh HkrhZ && ;ksX;rkuqlkj izksUur mikpk;Z vFkok vkpk;Z && ls ,d&gh Js.kh l`ftr ugha gksrh && lh/ks Hkjrh fd, x, O;fDr laoxZ in ij && ;ksX;rkuqlkj izksUur O;fDr ,sls laoxZ in ij ugha && ,d nwljs ds eqdkcys esa T;s"Brk fu;r ugha dh tk ldrhA
¼i½ lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, mikpk;Z rFkk vkpk;Z] mikpk;Z rFkk vkpk;Z ds laoxksZa dh mu fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjrs gSa ftuds fy, lh/kh Hkjrh viukbZ tkrh gSa tcfd ;ksX;rk izksUufr Ldhe ds v/khu izksUur O;fDr laoxZ ds ckgj gSa rFkk bl gSfl;r esa dksbZ in ugha Hkjrs D;ksafd dksbZ in l`ftr ugha gksrkA mudh izksUufr ‘kq) :i ls O;fDrxr gS rFkk ftu inksa ij mUgsa izksUur fd;k x;k gS og muds lsok thou ds i‘pkr~ ugha jgrsA in/kkjh ds lkFk in ,sls xk;c gks tkrs gSa tSls inkFkZ ds lkFk lk;kA bl izdkj izksUur O;fDr izksUufr ohfFk esa dksbZ fjfDr ugha Hkjrs D;ksafd izksUufr }kjk dksbZ in miyC/k ugha gksrkA
¼ii½ lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, mikpk;Z rFkk vkpk;Z /kkjk 49 esa vuq/;kr fu;qfDr ds ,dek= lzksr ds vuqlj.k esa vFkkZr~ lh/ks HkrhZ ds ek/;e ls] HkrhZ ds ek/;e ls] HkrhZ fd, tkrs gSaA izksUur mikpk;Z rFkk vkpk;Z laoxZ inksa ij ugha vfirq laiw.kZr% fHkUu Ldhe uker%] ;ksX;rk izksUufr Ldhe] ds v/khu fu;qDr gksrs gSaA bl Ldhe ds v/khu Hkh bl gSfl;r esa dksbZ in l`ftr ugha gksrsA Ldhe ds v/khu p;fur O;fDr;ksa dks O;fDrxr in fn, tkrs gSa tks muds fu;kstu ds lkFk lekIr gks tkrs gSaA oLrqr% ftu inksa ls mUgsa izksUur fd;k tkrk gS og fjDr ugha gksrs rFkk mDr inksa ij fdlh dh rc rd fu;qfDr ugha gks ldrh tc rd og mPprj in /kkj.k fd, gSaA
¼iii½ izksUur mikpk;ksZa rFkk vkpk;ksZa ds osrueku lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, mikpk;ksZa rFkk vkpk;ksZa ds osruekuksa ls fHkUu gSa] de&ls&de igys ns[ks x, vuqlkj o`fÙk mUufr Ldhe ds izorZu ds i‘pkr~A lkj&dFku esa] lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, mikpk;Z ds fy, 1-1-86 ls izHkko‘khy iqujhf{kr osrueku :- 3]700&5]300 gS tcfd izksUur mikpk;Z ds fy, osrueku :- 3]000&5]000 gSA lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, vkpk;Z dk osrueku :- 4]500&7]300 gS tcfd izksUur vkpk;Z dk osrueku :- 4]500&5]700 gSA ;g Hkh uksV fd;k tk, fd f‘k{kk foHkkx ds voj lfpo ds i= fnukad 1 tuojh 1989 ds vuqlkj ;ksX;rkuqlkj izksUur f‘k{kdksa ds osruekuksa esa mi;qZDr fHkUurk Li"Vr% crkbZ xbZ gSA fuLlansg ;g lR; gS fd e/; izns‘k ljdkj ds vkns‘kkuqlkj mu izksUur mikpk;ksZa rFkk vkpk;ksZa ds osrueku lajf{kr Fks tks o`fÙk muufr Ldhe ds izorZu ls iwoZ izksUur fd, x, FksA ijarq ,sls laj{k.k ds fy, og lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, vkpk;ksZa rFkk mikpk;ksZa ds Ldhe ds v/khu ;Fkkiqujhf{kr osruekuksa ds gdnkj ugha gks ldrs FksA tgk¡ rd ,d vksj ;ksX;rk izksUufr Ldhe ds v/khu izksUur O;fDr rFkk nwljh vksj lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, mikpk;Z rFkk vkpk;Z lacaf/kr gSa] osruekuksa esa ;g fHkUurk Lo;a lqLi"V oSf‘k"V; gSA
¼iv½ izksUur mikpk;Z vFkok vkpk;Z] mikpk;Z vFkok vkpk;Z dk dksbZ LFkkukiUu] vFkok vLFkk;h Hkh] in /kkj.k ugha djrs] u gh mikpk;ksZa rFkk vkpk;ksZa dh laoxZ la[;k esa dksbZ vLFkk;h o`f) gksrh gSA
¼v½ lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, mikpk;Z rFkk vkpk;Z dk dk;ZHkkj izksUur mikpk;Z vFkok vkpk;Z ds dk;ZHkkj ls fHkUu gS] ftuds fy, ;FkkfLFkfr mikpk;Z vFkok O;k[;krk dk dk;ZHkkj fQj Hkh lfEefyr gksuk gksxk D;ksafd mu laoxksZa esa Hkjs tkus ds fy, fjfDr;k¡ l`ftr ugha gksrha ftuls ,slh izksUufr;k¡ dh xbZ gSaA
¼vi½ ;ksX;rkuqlkj izksUur O;fDr;ksa dh izksUufr dh rqyuk esa /kkjk 49 dh Ldhe ds v/khu lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, O;fDr;ksa ds p;u dh izfØ;k esa xq.kkRed fHkUurk gSA ;|fi ;ksX;rkuqlkj izksUur O;fDr;ksa ds fy, /kkjk 49 ds v/khu p;u lfefr dh volajpuk miyC/k djkbZ tk ldrh gS] mudh izksUufr ds fy, ;ksX;rk izksUufr Ldhe ‘kkflr djus okys ekxZn‘kZd fl)karksa }kjk ;FkkifjdfYir ekunaM iw.kZr% lqLi"V rFkk fHkUu gSaA
¼vii½ izksUur mikpk;Z vFkok vkpk;Z dk ifjoh{kk ij j[ks tkus dk dksbZ iz‘u ugha gSA lac) inksa ij mudh iqf"V djus dk Hkh dksbZ iz‘u ugha gS D;ksafd og izksUufr fofFk esa ml gSfl;r esa fdlh in dk vf/kHkksx ugha djrsA ;g lh/ks HkrhZ fd, x, O;fDr;ksa ds leku ugha gSA ts-Vh 1995 ¼1½ ,l lh 471 voyafcrA iz-;k-Ø- 2064 lu~ 1989 myVh xbZA fjV ;k-Ø- 2558@88 izHksfnrA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 39 rFkk 40
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 rFkk 16 ¼1½ && ,d Js.kh }kjk laoxZ in /kkfjr tcfd vU; }kjk vlaoxZ in && nks i`Fkd~ Jsf.k;k¡ gksus ds dkj.k T;s"Brk ds ekeys esa vfrØe.k dk iz‘u ugha mBrkA ¿ iSjk 40
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 ¼1½ rFkk 16 && opu&foca/k bu mica/kksa dh Hkkouk ds fo:) && ‘kwU; rFkk vizorZuh; gSA ¿ iSjk 43
¼4½ fo"ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 35 ¼.k½ && foØe fo‘ofo|ky; ifjfu;e] 16 && thokth fo‘ofo|ky; && ifjfu;e 4¼2½ && ;|fi ;ksX;rkuqlkj izksUur mikpk;Z vFkok vkpk;Z dks laoxZ in izkIr ugha] rFkkfi og ,slk in lsokfuo`fÙk rd /kkfjr djsxk && mls laoxZ in ds vykok lc Qk;ns izkIr gksaxsA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k mikarfjrA ¿ iSjk 44
¼5½ izfrdj && d"V ds vk/kkj ij nkok mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha fd;k x;k && tc mlds fy, dksbZ rF;kRed vk/kkj ugha gS rc vihy esa nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 46
Majmudar, J. -- 1. These two civil appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench on 23rd February, 1994. The High Court allowed two writ petitions against Vikram University and other contesting respondents. The contesting respondents after obtaining special leave to appeal from the Court have challenged the said common judgment of the High Court in these civil appeals.
2. A common question is involved in these appeals, namely, whether the University teachers who have been given merit promotion as Readers or Professors, as the case may be, can claim seniority over directly recruited Readers and Professors on the ground of continuous officiation in service as Readers or Professors. The High Court has taken the view that they are not entitled to claim such seniority and has accordingly allowed the writ petitions moved by the directly appointed Readers and Professors. The appellants before us are the promo tee Readers and Professors under the merit promotion scheme.
Factual backdrop
3. In order to appreciate the grievance voiced by the appellants, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant introductory facts leading to these proceedings.
I. Civil Appeal No. 6001/94
4. This appeal is moved by the appellant who was earlier working as Lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Vikram University, Ujjain. The said University, its Registrar and the Kulpati are respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal. A merit promotion scheme was formulated by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') which has been joined as respondent No.5 in this appeal pursuant to notice issued by this Court. The said scheme was promulgated in the year 1982. We will refer to the details of the said scheme III the latter part of this judgment. It is sufficient to say' at the stage that the scheme was to provide opportunities for professional advancement of teachers working in the University and who merit academic recognition. Such teachers were to be given promotion on merits and not on the basis of seniority.
5. Under the said scheme the appellant was promoted to the post of Reader on 29th June, 1985. Respondent No.4 in this appeal who was the writ petitioner before the High Court in M.P. No. 208/89 was appointed as Reader in the Department of Political Science as direct recruit. He was so appointed on 13th March, 1986. He was confirmed after a period of two years' probation. The respondent No.1 University published seniority lists in the year November, 1986; November, 1987 and the latest list in November, 1988 whereunder the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No.4. The appellant was placed at serial No. 14 while respondent No.4 was placed at serial No. 33. That was presumably because the appellant worked as a promotee reader from 29.6.1985 while respondent No. 4 became reader by direct recruitment later on 13th March, 1986. Respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the said placement in the seniority list filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore on 17th January, 1989. The respondent No.4 prayed that the name of the appellant be deleted from the seniority list of Readers and also from the Board of Studies in Political Science and respondent No.1 be directed to determine the seniority of Readers in accordance with Statute No. 16 and to give due seniority to the 4th respondent in the cadre of Readers. This petition was contested by the University as well as the appellant. As noted earlier the High Court accepted the case of respondent No.4 writ petitioner and allowed the writ petition.
II. Facts leading to Civil Appeal No. 6002/94
6. The respondent No.4 in this appeal was the original writ petitioner before the High Court. He was appointed as Professor in Physics Department as direct recruit by respondent No.1 Vikram University, Ujjain. His appointment was confirmed after a period of 2 years' probation on 28th March, 1988. The prese
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
