Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr. Anil Kumar Bhargava vs . University Of Rajasthan Through Its ... on 15 May, 2014
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6432/2013 Dr. Anil Kumar Bhargava Vs. University of Rajasthan through its Registrar, Jaipur and others Date of Order ::: 15.05.2014 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, counsel for petitioner Shri Mahendra Singh and Shri R.A. Katta, counsel for respondents Shri Amit Chhangani for Shri Bharat Vyas, counsel for respondent no.3 #### By the Court:-
Petitioner Dr. Anil Kumar Bhargava has filed this writ petition with following prayer:-
i) Pleased to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme provided under the UGC Regulations 2000 and under Ordinance 141-I of the respondent University of Rajasthan and further consider the candidature of the petition for the same fairly and impartially and give benefit of the Lecturer (Selection Scale) to the petitioner from 10.02.1979, benefit of Lecturer (Senior Grade) w.e.f. 15.2.1994 and promotion to the post of Reader/Associate Professor w.e.f. 15.2.1994 or any other suitable date from which petitioner is entitled thereto as per the Scheme, with consequential benefits of Pay Fixation, Increment, Salary and Post Retiremental Benefits with interest @ 12%.
ii) Pleaded to direct the respondent to give benefit and make payment of the two advance incrmen4et given to the petitioner vide order dated 16.5.2005 on acquiring the qualification of Ph.D. during service and which was discontinued/withheld without any order from February 2006.
iii) Pleased to direct to make payment of the withheld two advance increment for the period from February 2006 to November 2006 and make fixation accordingly in his pay for the period from February 2006 to November 2006 and further fix his post retiremental benefits accordingly and make payment thereof with interest @ 12%.
iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper/fit in the facts & circumstances may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. The petition may be allowed with cost.
Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that despite eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner, he has not been granted benefit of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and promotion to the post of Reader/Associate Professor in the Career Advancement Scheme. He was granted two advancement increments, for acquiring the Ph.D. Degree vide order dated 16.05.2005, which was illegally withdrawn from February, 2006. It is contended that the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme is admissible to the petitioner under the Scheme of the UGC under UGC Regulations, 2002. Prior to those Regulations of 2002, there were UGC Regulations of 1983, which were amended from time to time by notifications dated 19.02.1984, 26.11.1985 and 24.12.1998. However, all the aforesaid Regulations and Notifications have been superseded by the Regulations of 2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Ordinance 141-I of the University Ordinances, argued that according to those provisions, a Lecturer/Assistant Professor is eligible for Lecturer-Senior Scale on completion of six years of service after regular appointment with relaxation of two years for those with Ph.D. and further has participated in one orientation course and one refresher course of approved duration or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programme of comparable quality as specified by UGC. Those possessing Ph.D. Degree and further having constant satisfactory annual performance appraisal report has been exempt from one refresher course. A lecturer in Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader/Associate Professor if he/she has completed five years of service in the senior scale, obtained a Ph.D. Degree or has equivalent published work, made some mark in the area of scholarship and research as evidenced i.e. self assessment reports of referees, quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new course and curriculum and extension activities, after placement in the senior scale, participated in two refresher courses/summer institute of approved duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programme of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the UGC and possess consistently good performance appraisal reports.
It is contended that for being eligible to Lecturer in selection scale grade, a lecturer in senior scale, who does not have a Ph.D. Degree or equivalent published work, and who does not meet the scholarship and research standards/post of Reacher, should fulfill the other criteria for the post of Reader, and should have a good record in teaching and preferably, and should have contributed in various ways such as to the corporate life of the institution, examination work or through extension activities. As far second relief of grant of two advancement increment on acquiring Ph.D. Degree, is concerned, the same is an admitted fact as it is evident from the order of the respondent University of Rajasthan dated 16.05.2005 apart from the concerned provisions and the orders of the respondent University. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court dated 28.05.2012 in a bunch of writ petitions leading one being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14653/2010 Rajeev Saxena and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another. That bunch also contained the Writ Petition No.15964/2010 Dr. Shambhu Prasad Bansal and Others Vs. University of Rajasthan and Another, in which petitioner was one of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioner has cited a recent Circular dated 09.01.2013 issued by the Registrar of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, providing that those who acquired qualification of Degree of Ph.D. between 01.01.1996 to 05.05.2002, would be, as per the instructions of the UGC and the Government of India dated 02.02.2001, entitled for two advance increments. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered thereby.
Shri R.A. Katta, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Surveyor, an isolated post, in the department of Sociology of the University on the recommendations of the selection committee vide office order dated 09.02.1973. He joined the duties on 10.02.1973. Subsequently he was confirmed on that post on 26.01.1981 vide order dated 03.04.1981. He was thereafter promoted/appointed on the post of Assistant Professor on ad-hoc basis in regular pay scale vide order dated 15.12.1988. A decision was taken by the Syndicate of the University vide Resolution No.9(iii) dated 29.03.2003, vide which the service of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Assistant Professor vide order dated 24.06.2003 with effect from 29.03.2003. He has thus been appointed/regularized on the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 29.03.2003. As per Career Advancement Scheme, an Assistant Professor, who completed six years of service after regular appointment as Assistant Professor, is eligible for senior scale. However, for those who possess Ph.D. Degree, are granted relaxation of experience by two years. Learned counsel submitted that an Assistant Professor, who is running in senior scale and possessing Ph.D. Degree and has five years service, is eligible for promotion on the post of Associate Professor under Career Advancement Scheme, in other words it is submitted that if a candidate who has Ph.D. Degree and completed nine years of service as Assistant professor, is eligible to be granted selection scale of Associate Professor. Since the petitioner was designated as Assistant Professor in the year 2009 by Syndicate and as such he would be entitled to be granted selection scale in the year 2012 and will be promoted as Associate Professor. Other 272 Assistant Professors, reference of which has been made by the petitioner, were initially appointed on the post of Assistant Professor and all of them have completed more than 12 years as Assistant Professor. The petitioner was given benefit of two advance increments on account of his having Ph.D. Degree, vide office order dated 16.05.2005, and benefit was also allowed accordingly, but later on the said benefit was withdrawn by the University of Rajasthan, as a matter of policy from all such persons also on the basis of report of the account section of University of Rajasthan. It is submitted that as prr the UGC Regulations 2002, regarding requirement of qualification for appointment as teachers/associate professors, the Syndicate of the University has incorporated the said scheme as the ordinance 141-I of the University Hand Book Part-II. The said provision was made applicable in the University for granting benefit under Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 19.05.2001. Since the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Assistant professor with effect from 29.03.2003, he is not entitled for benefit of selection scale on the basis of Career Advancement Scheme on the post of Associate Professor.
Shri R.A. Katta, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that with regard to withdrawal of two advancement increments granted on the basis of Ph.D. Degree to the petitioner in the year 2006, may need reexamination, in view of the subsequent decision of the University by different Circulars/Letters issued in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, and clarification received from the Government in December, 2013. However, on other aspect, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the judgment of this Court dated 28.05.2012 in Writ Petition No.15964/2010 Dr. Shambhu Prasad Bansal and Others Vs. University of Rajasthan and Another, main being Writ Petition No.14653/2010 Rajeev Saxena and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another.
In so far as question with regard to grant of two advancement increments is concerned, the respondents in para 4 of the reply to the writ petition themselves have admitted that the matter is required reexamination in view of various various subsequent decisions taken by the University by different Circulars/Letters issued in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 and clarification received from the Government in December, 2013. While granting the benefit of senior/selection scale and promotion on the post of Associate Professor to 272 Assistant professors in compliance of judgment dated 28.05.2012 in Writ Petition 15964/2010 (leading one being Writ Petition No.14653/2010), the case of the petitioner was not found covered thereby and therefore his case was not considered. By the judgment dated 28.05.2012, this court had decided 19 writ petitions. Those writ petitioners were also not initially appointed on regular basis. They were appointed under Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974. Therein, initially some of the petitioners were appointed pursuant to advertisement and some were given appointment directly by obtaining applications without issuing advertisements but they were working with the respondent University for last 10-15 years. Therefore, the State legislature enacted the Rajasthan University Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Act, 2008. The respondents then issued an order on 05.08.2008 to absorb all the Assistant Professors working on ad hoc/temporary basis. However, it was clarified that prior to 05.08.2008 they would not be entitled to any financial benefit (i.e. career advancement scheme) and consequential promotion etc. Their seniority was ordered to be determined in accordance with Rule 5(i) and (ii). In that case, the question was whether the petitioners are entitled to get benefit of counting their entire length of service. It was given out on behalf of the respondent University that 80% of the financial burden is shared by the University therefore it made favourable recommendation to the State Government to approve the proposal. Those writ petitions were allowed with the direction that petitioners would be entitled to count the entire length of service and all consequential benefits for the period earlier than 05.08.2008 on notional basis and actual benefits would be payable to them after that date only. The operative part of the judgment dated 28.05.2012 reads thus, In the light of the discussion made above, all the writ petitions are allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of benefit under the CAS by counting their length of service from the date of absorption and substantive appointment mentioned in the order 05.08.2008. If the petitioners are found eligible and recommended for the benefits of CAS after taking into consideration other eligibility conditions, then the respondents are directed to pass necessary order, however, benefit arising out of it with financial benefit would be accrued to the petitioners after 5.8.2008 and not from prior period. The implication of the direction aforesaid would be that petitioner's length of service would be counted from the date of their substantive appointment indicated in the order dated 5.8.2008 for the purpose of determination of their eligibility for CAS and it would not be from 5.8.2008 as directed by the State Government. The order passed by the State Government in that regard are set aside.
It is informed that aforesaid judgment has been complied with by the respondents as the appeal filed there-against before the Division Bench has been dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2011 on the statement that the Supreme Court has decided the similar controversy against the State Government in Civil Appeal Nos.469 and 470 of 2007 and the Review Petition Nos.2124-2125 of 2011 were also dismissed.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 16.05.2005 thereby withdrawing the benefit of two advance increments granted to the petitioner, is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend benefit of Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioner by counting the period of service rendered by him from the date of his initial appointment.
Compliance be made within two months from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman// All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW