CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date :19-01-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of the full benefit under the Statute for Career Advancement Scheme brought in under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976; which University, is now rechristened B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University.

2. Sri Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Pratap, GP-2 for the respondent No. 1 and 2.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in an affiliated college of the University after selection conducted by the Bihar College Service Commission, in the year 1997. The appointment was under Section 57A of the Universities Act, which recommendation is seen from Annexure-3 and the appointment evidenced by Annexure-4; as a Lecturer in the Hindi. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed to a constituent college after selection by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission in the year 2003, as is seen from Annexure-5. The petitioner’s contention is that the Statute for Career Advancement Scheme was approved by the Chancellor, in 29.06.2005, but, was implemented with effect from 27.07.1998. Since the statute existed with retrospective effect from 27.07.1998; the petitioner ought to have been given the higher scale, on her first appointment to the constituent college, as she had continuous service of four years in an affiliated college. Under para 10.1.0 of the Statute, the minimum length of service to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D; which doctoral degree the petitioner had at the time of her appointment to the affiliated college and the constituent college. As was the practice, the Career Advancement was delayed and none took up cudgels against the University since always when it was granted, it was granted with retrospective effect. Even in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was granted the same in the year

2011, as is revealed from Annexure-11.

4. By Annexure-11 the petitioner’s Career Advancement was granted only from 26.07.2007 deeming completion of four years from the date of her appointment as per Annexure-5 dated 26.06.2003, to a constituent college. This was based on the amendment made to the statute by the Chancellor, as is seen from Annexure-9. By the aforesaid amendment, the word ‘constituent’ was incorporated before the word ‘college’. It was the contention of the University that only those persons, who had minimum service in the constituent colleges would be entitled to the Career Advancement Scheme. The amendment was not in accordance with the procedure, as prescribed under the State Universities Act and in any event, could not have taken away the accrued rights of the petitioner, is the contention raised.

5. The learned Government Advocate would argue that the State Government was also entitled to make suggestions, which could be reckoned by the Chancellor while considering the amendment of statutes. It is pointed out that it is on the basis of such a suggestion, as revealed from Annexure-9 that the amendment was made. It ensured that only service in constituent colleges would be enabled for Career Advancement since the statute is one under the University Act, wherein the affiliated and constituent colleges stand on distinct footing and are defined and treated differently. Reliance is also placed on Registrar, Karnataka University and Another v. Dr. Prabhugouda and Another reported in (2021) 15 SCC 706 to contend that in an identical circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that only persons in constituent colleges would be entitled to the benefit of the Statute. Reliance is also placed on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chancellor to contend that the Career Advancement Scheme has been completely revamped by a new scheme made effective from 18.07.2018.

6. Affiliated colleges and constituent colleges are separately defined under the Universities Act under Section 2(c) and 2(