Promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme requires active service; retrospective promotions are not permissible as per UGC regulations.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14754 of 2025 has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 23.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the appellant-petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Vice Chancellor of the 1^st respondent Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University to forthwith constitute the Selection Committee and consider him for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme from Assistant Professor Level 12 to Assistant Professor Level 13A; and a declaration that the action of the 2^nd respondent Vice Chancellor in not constituting the Selection Committee and considering the petitioner for promotion from Assistant Professor Level 12 to Assistant Professor Level 13A under the Career Advancement Scheme, as laid down in the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018, read with University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

2. During the pendency of W.P.(C)No.14754 of 2025, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 11.04.2025, whereby it was made clear that the retirement of the petitioner on 23.05.2025 shall not stand in the way of considering him for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotion.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed that the issue raised in W.P.(C)No.14754 of 2025 is covered by the judgment dated 10.06.2025 in W.P.(C)No.19778 of 2018 [sic: W.P.(C)No.19778 of 2025]. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment dated 23.06.2025 in W.P.(C)No.14754 of 2025 read thus;

“2. The issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the Judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.19778 of 2018 dated 10.06.2025 wherein considering the mandates of the Regulation 6.3.5 of UGC Regulation, 2018 which specifically provides that the promotion can only be granted to a person in the University/Colleges affiliated to the Universities who is in service. Once the petitioner has demitted the office on attaining the age of superannuation, the said Regulation does not allow granting retrospective operation for promotion to the petitioner. The promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme is not an automatic promotion. Certain processes and procedures are involved for making promotion even under the Career Advancement Scheme. The University must constitute an Experts’ Committee of the experts for granting promotion even under the career advancement scheme. The experts are invited from outside the University. The Experts’ Committee required to evaluate the academic credentials of the candidates and, thereafter, interview the candidates and then makes the recommendations and thereafter, the senate/executive committee of the University is required to approve the decision of the Experts’ Committee. Therefore, when such a process cannot be undertaken in respect of the person who has already demitted the Office, the UGC itself has provided in Regulation 6.3.5 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 that promotion cannot be granted to a person who is not in service. Therefore, I do not find that the petitioner has a claim for retrospective pro