Telangana High Court
The Osmania University vs Dr. B. Krishna Reddy on 8 September, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
W.A.Nos.191, 122, 189 and 204 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.A.No.122 of 2019, are hereunder discussed.
It is the case of the appellants that the respondents were appointed by the Constituent Colleges of University on temporary basis and subsequently, their services were regularized after facing the regular selection committee.
The issue involved in all these writ appeals is whether the services rendered by the respondents on adhoc/temporary basis can be counted for the purpose of considering their promotion under Career Advancement Scheme.
2Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that since the respondents were not selected by the duly constituent committee at the time of their initial appointment on adhoc basis, their services were not taken into consideration for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme. When their cases were not considered for such promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, the respondents have filed W.P.Nos.22466, 22479 and 22494 of 2011 and learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions vide common order dated 05.09.2017 without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had drawn our attention to the UGC Guidelines for Career Advancement Scheme which were adopted by the University. The heading 'Counting of Past Service for 3 promotion under Career Advancement Scheme' no doubt provides that adhoc/temporary service can be counted for the purpose of extending the benefit under Careeer Advancement Scheme. Clause (F) reads as under:
"The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an adhoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that:
(i)The period of service was of more than one year duration;
(ii)The incumbent was appointed on the
recommendation of duly constituted Selection
Committee; and
(iii)The incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the adhoc or temporary service, without any break."
A perusal of the said clause makes it clear that the incumbents must be appointed based on the recommendation made by the duly constituted selection committee. Since the respondents were appointed on temporary basis, learned Single Judge has not taken into 4 consideration this particular vital aspect and allowed the writ petitions. Learned counsel had further drawn our attention to Clause (b) also, which states that the post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor(Lecturer), Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.
Admittedly the pay scale of the respondents is not equivalent to that of Associate Professor and on that count also the University has not considered the cases of the respondents for promotion to the post of Professor as the respondents were not in the equivalent grade of pay scale. This aspect was also not dealt with by the learned Single Judge and therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the respondents were appointed by a duly constituted committee of the Constituent Colleges and subsequently the University has appointed the respondents on regular basis by subjecting the respondents to regular selection process. Even at the time of initial appointment also, the respondents were subjected to a Selection Committee constituted by the Colleges and the Colleges itself are run by the University which would mean that the respondents were appointed by the duly selection committee and insofar as the aspect of objection to the equivalent pay scale of Associate Professor is concerned, learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with in Para No.15 of the judgment which reads as follows:
6"According to Clause (b), the post in which Lecturer was working should be an equivalent grade or in pre-revised scale of pay of post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) etc. According to the senior counsel appearing for petitioners, the pre-revised basic pay of Lecturer was at Rs.2200/- and by adding the Dearness Allowance the starting pay given to them was Rs.4488/- and same was equivalent. No other material is brought on record by the University to show that petitioners were not working in the equivalent grade/scale of pay. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioners fulfilled this requirement."
As the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions in favour of the respondents, there are no merits in these writ appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petitions in favour of the respondents with the following observations.
7According to Clause (b), the post in which Lecturer was working should be an equivalent grade or in pre-revised scale of pay of post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) etc. According to the senior counsel appearing for petitioners, the pre-revised basic pay of Lecturer was at Rs.2200/- and by adding the Dearness Allowance the starting pay given to them was Rs.4488/- and same was equivalent. No other material is brought on record by the University to show that petitioners were not working in the equivalent grade/scale of pay. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioners fulfilled this requirement.
According to Clause (e), the post in which they were appointed on adhoc basis must be by prescribed selection process as laid down by the regulations of the concerned institution. In the instant case, concerned institution was Women's college and it is an autonomous institution. The University also accepted the fact that selection committee was constituted at the institution level and that selection committee selected the petitioners. The selection was on ad-hoc basis. No material is brought on record to show that Women's college was not authorized to constitute its own selection committee and make selections. University was aware of appointment of petitioners. The University has not nullified those selections. At any rate, at this point of time, the University cannot raise plea that initial appointment of the petitioners was not by duly constituted selection committee. Thus, for the limited purpose of computation of past service rendered by petitioners on ad-hoc basis the said service cannot be ignored on this premise.
Clause (f) recognizes that ad-hoc appointment for more than one year duration can be treated as valid appointment for the purpose of computation of the past service. There are three requirements for application of this clause; (1) the period of service should be more than one year; (2) incumbent was appointed on the recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee; and (3) incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the adhoc or temporary service without any break. The record would disclose that petitioners satisfied all the three conditions.
8Thus, they are entitled to compute ad-hoc service for the purpose of acquiring the eligibility for the purpose of extension of CAS.
In the counter affidavit, the principal objection raised by the University was that the committee constituted by the institution to select petitioners on ad-hoc basis in the year 1995 was not in tune with the mandate of Section 43-A of the Act, 1991 and UGC regulations. As noted above, even in the case of earlier appointments same objection was raised by the University but they were extended the benefit by computing the adhoc service/part time service rendered prior to their regular appointments. Present stand of the University cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, having regard to the judgment of this Court in W.P Nos.10043, 10533 and 10534 of 1993 and extending the benefits to those Lecturers in compliance thereof/otherwise as the case may be. It amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and falls foul of mandate of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the earlier appointments made and benefit granted to others, University cannot be permitted to take such a plea each time when claim is made. In the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that university is unnecessarily resorting to avoidable litigation.
The decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for University have no application to the facts of the cases on hand. In case of Basavaiah (Dr) selection of appellants to the posts of Reader in Sericulture was opposed on the ground that they were not qualified. The committee appointed by the University thoroughly scrutinized qualifications, experience, published works of both candidates, made recommendation for their appointments. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside their appointment. Question for consideration was whether these two appellants before the Supreme Court were qualified to be appointed as Readers in Sericulture. Supreme Court observed that Division Bench was not justified in sitting in appeal over the unanimous opinion of the expert committee. Supreme Court further observed that Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert committee consisting of distinguished experts in the 9 field upheld the decision of the University by reverting the decision of the High Court.
In The Chancellor and another, a day after the selection, three members of the selection committee objected to the selection of Dr.Prafulla Kumar Mahapatra. Over-ruling the said objection, he was appointed. Said appointment was challenged. Objection on the suitability of Dr.Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra was negatived by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court held that decision of the academic authority should not ordinarily be interfered by the Courts. Whether the candidates fulfils the required qualification or not is a matter which should be entirely decided by the academic bodies and concerned selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subject relevant to the selection.
In the facts of these cases, principle laid down in the said two decisions have no application. These writ petitions do not concern assessment of suitability of petitioners to a particular academic position vis-à-vis their qualifications and academic skill possessed by them as assessed by expert body. One of the requirements of extension of CAS benefits is putting in minimum service in the lower grade. The UGC guidelines enable computation of the ad-hoc service rendered for the purpose of acquiring the eligibility for upgradation to the next scale/post. Whether the service rendered by petitioners on ad-hoc basis can be counted as eligible service is in issue. Thus, it is not a case of assessment of suitability and professional competence of the candidates vis-à-vis their academic qualifications, but of computation of the ad-hoc service towards the eligible service to grant benefits of CAS as per UGC guidelines. It is also relevant to note that their eligibility to teach in relevant discipline was assessed before they were selected on adhoc basis and their suitability to hold the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis was also assessed before they were selected and appointed in the year 2007.
The possession of required academic qualifications and ability to teach in the concerned discipline, Statistics/ Chemistry as the case may be, is not doubted. They have rendered considerable 10 service while working on adhoc basis. It is also appropriate to note that CAS is introduced to grant periodical upgradation as an incentive to teaching faculty after rendering a particular period of service and possessing required academic qualification. UGC recognized the fact of large number of persons in teaching faculty get initially appointed on temporary/ adhoc basis before they were regularly appointed. Thus, clauses in the scheme, as noted above, are tuned in such a way to enable such lecturers to compute the adhoc service for the purpose of financial upgradation/elevation. The fact that scheme recognizes computation of adhoc service / service rendered even in private institutions would also goes to show that UGC was conscious of existence of such kind of appointments and gives weight to such service to grant periodical upgradation. It is in recognition of fact that such long continuation on adhoc basis and /or service in private institutions would also amount to stagnation. It is an incentive on rendering satisfactory service and therefore scope of computation of service is expanded. This scheme is a beneficial scheme and intend to address the grievance of teaching faculty on stagnation and to provide incentive of upgradation duly taking note of adhoc service and/or service rendered in private institutions. It being a beneficial scheme, the Clauses of CAS guidelines must receive liberal construction.
On cumulative reading of the clauses incorporated in the UGC guidelines, the object of the scheme and having regard to the educational qualifications possessed and ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioners, assessment of their eligibility by duly constituted selection committee at the institution level when they were appointed on ad-hoc basis and by the University when they were regularly appointed, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to seek computation of the ad-hoc service rendered by them to make them eligible for extending the benefits of CAS. Contrary action of the University is illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. In the facts of this case, such action is also discriminatory.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent University shall assess the suitability of 11 petitioners to grant benefits of AGP of 8000 in the year 2007 and promotion as Associate Professor in the year 2010 in the respective disciplines by duly taking note of adhoc service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment and if found suitable shall grant them all consequential benefits including arrears of amounts due and payable. The entire exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Further, a perusal of Clause (b) and (f) makes it abundantly clear that the previous service rendered by the respondents is admittedly more than one year and they were appointed by the duly constituted committee.
Insofar as the pay scales are concerned, learned Single Judge held that the respondents are drawing the same scales as of Associate Professor by calculating the basic pay along with D.A. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the common order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
12Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI __________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 08.09.2022 rkk 13