Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Even though the petitioner had completed the required period of service in the post of Associate Professor to become Professor as on 01.01.2009 (3 years as Associate Professor as per UGC VI regulation), the petitioner failed to submit the PBAS and all the records of achievement according to the UGC 6th Regulation before the statutory screening committee to consider his claim on merits. The PBAS submitted by the Petitioner in 2012 was scrutinised by the Statutory Screening Committee on 10.10.2012 and found that the petitioner is not having sufficient API scores in the Category III Research and Publication) and hence did not recommend the petitioner for promotion to the post of professor and the 1st respondent University issued Exhibit P4 memo. True copy of the relevant page of the minutes of the meeting of the screening committee held on l0.10.2012 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b). The 1 st respondent University is bound to adhere to UGC regulations, time to time.

11. The 1st respondent university implemented UGC 6th Regulation as per order no. 15021/Ad.A2/S5US/2010 dated 11.11.2011. All the applications received for promotion in CAS was disposed by the University as per the said order. As per the order of the Honourable Supreme Court and the order of the High Court of Kerala dated 23.02.2016 and the UGC 6th Regulation, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 12.11.2017. There were no pending cases in 1st respondent University on or before 23.02.2016 regarding the promotion under CAS. The PBAS submitted by the Petitioner in 2012 was scrutinised by the Statutory Screening Committee on 10.10.2012 and found that the petitioner does not have sufficient API scores in the Category III (research and Publication) and hence did not recommend for promotion to the post of Professor. The WA NO. 1249 OF 2025 12 2026:KER:23869 same was informed to the Petitioner vide memo No. Ad. A2/2525/SSUS/2012(3) dated 26.11.2012. True copy of memo NO.Ad.A2/2525/SSUS/2012(3) dated 26.11.2012 issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(d). If the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, he ought to have challenged the Exhibit P2 and P4 without delay, but he did not. Now, after a lapse of 12 years, the petitioner challenges the decision of the 1st respondent University and thereby the same is hit inordinate delay and therefore not maintainable. Moreover, the action of the petitioner in submitting a fresh request in 2017 after rectifying the defects raised, shows that he had no grievance against the Exhibit P2 and P4 decision of the Screening Committee held on 30.09.2010 and 10.10.2012, respectively. In the Career Advancement Scheme, academic excellence of the teachers cannot be compromised. Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to accept the counter affidavit and dismiss the writ petition with cost".

12. The petitioner did not submit the SAR to the post of WA NO. 1249 OF 2025 16 2026:KER:23869 Professor either on 23.12.2007 or on 01.01.2009. Even though the petitioner had completed the required period of service in the post of Associate Professor to become Professor as on 01.01.2009, the petitioner failed to submit the PBS and records of achievements as required by UGC 5th Regulation. On scrutiny of PBAS submitted by the petitioner in 2012, it was found that the petitioner is not having sufficient API score in the category III (Research and Publication). Therefore, he was not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor. Later, the petitioner submitted PBAS on 11.11.2017. Thereafter, considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Screening Committee, the petitioner was placed in the post of Professor.

13. The appellant herein was appointed in the 1st respondent University as a lecturer on 14.07.1999. He was placed as Senior Grade lecturer with effect from 22.12.1999, taking note of his prior service in Mahatma Gandhi University for a period of ten years and six months. He was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer and not as reader as per the 5th UGC Scheme, since his publications were not in the approved journals. As per Clause 6.1.11 of the Government Order dated 27.03.2010, those who have completed three years in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer have to be designated as Associate Professor. The appellant was redesignated as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. For placement as a Professor, a candidate should submit SAR for a period of five years and five research publications before the date of eligibility for placement. The publications of the appellant were not recognised or published in credible journals. He was not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor since, on scrutiny of the PBAS submitted by him in the year 2012, it was found that the appellant does not have sufficient API score in the WA NO. 1249 OF 2025 19 2026:KER:23869 category III (Research and Publications). After submission of PBAS on 11.11.2017, considering the recommendations of the selection committee and the screening committee, the appellant was placed in the post of Professor. As contended by the 1st respondent Ext.P2 decision of the screening committee in the year 2010 and the consequent Ext.P4 communication are not challenged in time by the appellant. He submitted a fresh application in the year 2019. The learned Single Judge considered all these aspects and passed the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.