IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 B.K. Vashist and others .... Petitioners Versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed against the University’s decision to withdraw the benefit of Professor’s grade granted to petitioners no. 1 to 3 from 01.04.1994, 02.04.1994 and 26.05.1994, respectively; as also to recover the amount of salary paid to them pursuant thereto. Further, a direction has been sought to the University to fix the petitioners’ pay in the pay scale meant for the post of Professor.

2. Learned senior counsel contended that the Executive Council (EC) of the University in its meeting, dated 31.03.1983, decided to introduce Personal Promotion Scheme for teachers. It prescribes that a teacher having at least ten years’ teaching experience as a Reader in a University, of which at least five years should be in the concerned teaching department, will be eligible for promotion as Professor. The Scheme was amended by the EC in its meeting, dated 28.10.1992, by reducing the aforesaid teaching experience as Reader from ten to eight years, to be eligible for promotion as Professor. Petitioners no.1 to 3 were, accordingly, considered and promoted as Professors vide letters dated 31.03.1994, 26.04.1994 and 26.05.1994, Annexure P-3 to P-5, respectively. The State Government later amended Section 12-A of the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986, vide notification dated 20.07.1994, Annexure P-6, requiring that the University shall not create any teaching and non-teaching post or revise the pay scales of the teaching and non-teaching employees without obtaining prior approval of the Government. It is claimed that relying upon the amendment, the benefit of promotion as Professor given to the petitioners was withdrawn and recovery of the excess amount was also effected. This was in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as no opportunity of hearing was granted to them prior thereto. Besides, no reasons have been conveyed for non-grant of the benefit. This makes the decision arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.

3. Learned counsel for the University, on the contrary, submits that the Personal Promotion Scheme was approved by the State Government on 08.03.1989. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to the Scheme reducing the teaching experience as Reader from ten to eight years was also required to be approved by the Government; the Government, however, did not approve the Scheme. And the University had no option but to fix the petitioners’ pay as per the original Scheme. Besides, petitioners no.1 and 3 were duly informed vide letters dated 03.06.1994 and 30.11.1994, Annexures R-1 and R-2, respectively, that their promotion as Professor was provisional, subject to approval of their cases by the Government, as the amended guidelines for the Scheme were still to be approved. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he had already availed the selection grade under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), and later requested for his promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme. Therefore, he could not have availed the benefit of both the schemes. In response to a communication dated 08.04.1994, Annexure R-3, he submitted a letter dated 11.04.1994, Annexure R-4, forgoing the benefit of selection grade under CAS, and opted for the post of Professor under the Personal Promotion Scheme.

3.1. Further, learned counsel for the University has referred to the averments in the written statement regarding constitution of a standing committee and its recommendations that the petitioners’ promotion to the post of Professor be given effect to from the date they completed ten years of service. The averme