Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2016
W.P. No.10637/2012
21.04.2016
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Devesh Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 7/4/2012 passed by respondent NO.1 thereby the respondents have denied the promotion to the petitioner on the post of Professor.
2. The petitioner possesses the post graduate degree in Economics. He was appointed on the post of Lecturer vide order dated 21/8/1977. Thereafter senior scale of pay was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17/5/1996. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Assistant Professor vide order dated 23/11/1998 and since then the petitioner is continuously working on the post of Assistant Professor. Service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the provisions of M.P. Shakshanik Sewa (Mahavidyalayin Shakha) Bharti Niyam, 1990 and as per Schedule-IV, Serial No.3 annexed to the Recruitment Rules, an Assistant Professor is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor/Deputy Director. As per the eligibility criteria, if he has completed eight years of service in the senior pay scale and not less than 16 on the post of Assistant Professor. It has also been provided that for getting promotion an individual should have obtained Ph.D. Degree or he should have been done equivalent published work. The petitioner submits that he is fully eligible for promotion on the said post. It has been further stated that the petitioner does not possess the Ph.D. Degree, however, he has got several published work equivalent to Ph.D. Degree and, therefore, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Professor, but, as the petitioner was not granted promotion, he submitted number of representations, however, no action has been taken by the respondents. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.14802/2007(s) before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 03/10/2011 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the fact that even without Ph.D., the petitioner was eligible to be promoted to the post of Professor if he was having published work equivalent to Ph.D to his credit. The respondents thereafter vide order dated 7/4/2012 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the project work published by the petitioner was analyzed by Ph.D Thesis Committee of Barkatullah University and the committee was asked to give its opinion as to whether the project work of the petitioner could be treated equivalent to the Ph.D. It has been further contended in the order that the committee has opined that the work published by the petitioner in relation to the project was not in accordance with the criteria fixed by the University-Grant-Commission and, therefore, it could not be treated equivalent to Ph.D., thus, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The respondents have filed their return and have contended that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the order passed by this Court and the matter was referred to the committee consisting of four members in which they have decided that the project work of the petitioner is not equivalent to Ph.D and it is not in accordance with the guidelines of the UGC. They have further submitted that no junior has been promoted and no person equivalent to the petitioner has been granted promotion, therefore, the claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the committee has already scrutinized the case of the petitioner and, therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the expert opinion given by the committee, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed by respondent No.1 is illegal and contrary to the directions issued by this Court. He further submits that this Court has directed the respondents to consider his case for promotion and the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria for promotion as prescribed under the rules. As the petitioner is having a published work equivalent to Ph.D. which was in relation of a project, therefore, the committee committed a serious mistake in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion. The committee has considered the case of the petitioner in the light of Ordinance -14 of the University and the said Ordinance is not applicable in respect of the employees of the State Government. He further submits that as per the report submitted by the committee, no research work or published work can be equated to the Ph.D and in no circumstances any published work can be treated equivalent to the Ph.D.. Thus, if the report of the committee is accepted, then it makes statutory Recruitment Rules of 1990 as redundant so far it provides for consideration of the published work treating as equivalent to the Ph.D., therefore, the report of the committee is absolutely illegal and contrary to the recruitment rules. He further submits that the opinion given by the committee has been followed by the respondents without application of mind in a most mechanical manner.
5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents argues that the case of the petitioner was considered as per the direction issued by this Court and the matter was referred to the committee and the committee has opined that the published work of the petitioner is not equivalent to Ph.D and, therefore, the opinion expressed by the committee cannot be interfered in a writ petition. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. From perusal of the order Annexure-P/9 dated 7/4/2012, it appears that the committee has considered the case of the petitioner in accordance with Ordinance-14 framed by the University and as per Ordinance- 14, there is no provision for considering any research project work equivalent to Ph.D. Degree. The committee has further stated in the said report that subject of the project and Ph.D can be same, however, there is different provisions regarding awarding of Ph.D. and funding agency to the project. The committee further found that the research project submitted by the petitioner is not equivalent to Ph.D. Degree. Thus, from perusal of the said report, it appears that the committee has considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the Ordinance-14 which is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner is an employee of the State Government.
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 7/4/2012 issued by respondent NO.1 is hereby set aside and the respondent/State is directed to constitute a fresh committee for considering the case of the petitioner regarding project work of the petitioner. The said committee will be constituted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the committee is further directed to give opinion within two months thereof and the respondent/State is further directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the basis of the opinion given by the committee.
C.C. as per rules.
(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar) Judge ts.