Entitlement to benefits under CAS despite retirement and the obligation to complete the process within six months from the receipt of application.

ORDER :

In all these cases, common relief (i.e. extend the service benefits to various posts under CAS) arises for consideration. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. All the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions have been appointed as Lecturers and different posts on different dates. They are working under Osmania University, Hyderabad, in various pay scales and were promoted from time to time as per their eligibility. All are entitled to get promotion to their respective higher posts and its benefits on completion of 10 years of service under the Career Advancement Scheme (for short, "CAS"). The respondent University is duty-bound under the Regulation to conduct CAS twice in a year. But they did not do so.

2.1 The petitioners contended that the University issued a circular on 11.02.2019 for implementation of CAS putting cut-off date as 08.03.2019. Subsequently the same was extended up to 30.03.2019 vide proceedings dt.11.03.2019. The said notifications have not been processed. While pending the same, the University issued another circular dt.23.08.2019 under CAS/applications called for exercising option for new UGC regulations-2018 with the cut of dt.06.09.2019 and extended the same up to 16.09.2019. All the petitioners have applied for the same within the time. Thus, the respondent University issued circulars one after the other without conducting the interviews as contemplated under the scheme.

2.2 It is the further contention of the petitioners that they are eligible in terms of Regulations 2010, in Regulations 2018, 6.3.IV and V. The UGC regulations 2010 and 2018 have been adopted by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.14 dt.20.02.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dt.29.06.2019, respectively. The petitioners have submitted their respective applications in terms of Circular dt.23.08.2019 and are eligible for promotion under CAS. Still, the respondent University did not conduct an interview for promotion under CAS. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petitions by directing the respondent University to hold CAS interview before their retirement in terms of the Circulars dt.11.02.2019 and dt.23.08.2019 and also the UGC Regulations on Minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Minimum of Standards in Higher Education 2010 and 2018.

3. Counter has been filed by the respondent University. Respondent admitted in their counter all the applications submitted by the petitioners within time as per the above circulars. The main contention of the respondent University is that the University vide Letter No.MR-69/9/2019/Adm.II.1, dt.22.05.2019 requested the Government to nominate an academician as Chancellor's nominee to conduct the Career Advancement Scheme Selections, and the Chancellor's nominee on the Selection Committee is still awaited, due to which, the selection process was not conducted. The University is in the process of conducting the interview/selection of the teachers for movement to the next higher grade/promotion under CAS after an academician nominated by the Chancellor in terms of the University request Memo dt.22.05.2019. It is further submitted that as per the UGC Regulations – 2010 dt.30.06.2010 (Rule 6.3.9) and UGC Regulations – 2018 dt.18.07.2018 (Rule 6.3.V), the rules related for the promotion of the various posts under CAS are as follows :

"For the promotion under the CAS, the applicant teacher must be on the rolls and in active service of the University / College on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee.

But, now the all the petitioners are retired on different dates from service. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

4. Heard Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ch. Jagannath Rao learned Standing counsel for respondents. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while advancing his arguments, he brought to the notice of this Court that the abov