Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr R P Mahrishi And Ors vs Raj Agricultural Universtiy on 4 January, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12288/2009 Dr RP Maheshwari & ors Vs Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner 4.1.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Mahendra Singh - for petitioner Mr Sarvesh Jain for respondent-University BY THE COURT:
With consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is heard finally.
The grievance in the present writ petition is regarding denial of benefit of promotion as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (for short 'the scheme') of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
Petitioners were called for selection, however, they have been denied benefit of promotion under Career Advancement Scheme on the ground that number of posts sanctioned by the State Government are limited, whereas, for promotion to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme, eight years of service as Reader/ Associate Professor is required and it is time bound promotion to remove stagnation thus no sanctioned post is required. The controversy aforesaid has already been decided by this court in the case of Dr Om Prakash Dhakar versus State of Rajasthan & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3012/2009, decided on 22.2.2010 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. Therein, it was held that there is no requirement of santioned post under the scheme as framed by the ICAR. The respondents were directed to grant benefit of promotion under the scheme to all the candidates who are eligible and found suitable by the committee Accordingly, this writ petition may be allowed with a direction to the respondent to reconsider candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme but with the clarification that consideration for promotion should not be limited to the sanctioned posts of the Professor, rather, sanctioned posts of Professor have to be filled by direct recruitment and so far as promotion under the scheme is concerned, it is to be provided irrespective of sanctioned posts of Professor. The aforesaid is coming out from the circular dated 19.7.2000 at Annexure-6 issued by the ICAR, wherein, para 2.5 provides as to who would be eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under the Scheme and as to what would be the criteria for selection. The respondent, while making selection on the earlier occasion restricted promotion under the scheme to the extent of sanctioned posts which may be declared illegal. Accordingly, present mater may be covered by the judgment in the case of Dr Om Prakash Dhakar (supra).
Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that petitioners were denied benefit of promotion under the scheme looking to the sanctioned strength of posts of Professor. For illustration, in the Plant Pathology, four posts of Professor were sanctioned by the State Government, accordingly, benefit of promotion under the scheme was given to the extent of four meritorious candidates and same practice has been adopted by the respondent for other streams. In any case, if a direction is issued for reconsideration of the candidature of the petitioners and others, ignoring the sanctioned strength of the post of Professor, respondent would carry out the direction within time frame.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case.
The only issue required to be addressed is as to whether for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, sanctioned post is required or not? For the aforesaid purpose, reference of circular dated 19.7.2000 is relevant. Para 2.5 of the Scheme for Career Advancement of Teachers in the SAUs and CAUs effective from 1.1.1996 reads as under :-
(2.5) Professor (Promotion) In addition to the sanctioned position of Professors, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisement, promotions may be made from the post of Reader/ Associate Professor to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader/ Associate Professor.
The Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Professor should be the same as that for direct recruitment. For the promotion from Reader/ Associate Professor to Professor, the following method of promotion may be followed. ....
Perusal of para quoted aforesaid shows that in addition to sanctioned post of Professor, which is to be filled by direct recruitment through all India advertisement, promotion under the scheme has to be given to those Readers/ Associate Professors who have completed 8 years of service on the post. The scheme clearly shows that so far as the sanctioned post of Professor is concerned, it has to be filled by direct recruitment and so far as promotion under the scheme is concerned, it would be available for the candidate who has completed 8 years of service as Reader/ Associate Professor. The promotion would however be subject to selection and recommendation by the committee, which would look into various aspects given in para 2.5 of the scheme itself. The issue aforesaid was considered by this court in the case of Dr Om Prakash Dhakar (supra). Relevant part thereof is quoted hereunder for ready reference -
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the orders passed earlier including the order dated 19.1.2010. This court found that there is no restriction with number of posts under the Scheme as framed by the UGC and, thereafter, ordered that respondents may grant benefit under the scheme to all the candidates who are found eligible and suitable by the committee irrespective of the restriction, if any, imposed by the State Government. This order was passed on 5.10.2009 and more than 3 months have already passed to that order.
It would be relevant to mention here that the circular considered by this court in the case of Dr Om Prakash Dhakar was of UGC, however, the scheme applicable herein is similar which is clearly coming out from perusal of para 2.5 of the scheme dated 19.7.2000 and applicable to the present matter.
The respondent fail to consider that the Scheme was framed to remove stagnation and timely promotions. It is only for that reason opening line of para 2.5 of the Scheme provide that in addition to the sanctioned position, promotion may be made... The petitioners were not recommended for promotion for want of sanctioned posts.
In view of aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. Respondent University is directed to hold selection for promotion for the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme. The consideration would be applicable to all the eligible candidates irrespective of sanctioned posts available because promotion under the scheme is to be given to remove stagnation and otherwise sanctioned posts are to be filled by direct recruitment through all India advertisement. Necessary exercise for promotion to the post of Professor under the Scheme would be completed at the earl00iest but not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
This order would not only applicable to the petitioners but also to those who are eligible for such promotion under the scheme. This is to avoid further litigation on the issue.
If the petitioners or other eligible candidates are recommended and granted promotion under the scheme, it goes without saying that consequential benefits would be made applicable to them from the date they became eligible to get the promotion under the scheme. It is, however, clarified that eligible and suitable candidate recommended by the committee would only be entitled to the benefit of promotion to the post, as directed above.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J