Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioners who are serving on the post of Associate Professors are stated to be entitled to the next promotion as per the prevailing UGC/ICAR Regulations and the Rules for promotion to the post of Professor in accordance with Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as, "the CAS"). The University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as, "the UGC") framed its Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities & Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education- 2010, (hereinafter referred to as, "the Regulations, 2010"), which was published in the Gazette of India. In these Regulations, the UGC in Regulation 6.4.0 stated the stages of promotion of incumbent and newly appointed Assistant Professors/ Associate Professors/ Professors under CAS. The Regulation 6.4.8 is relevant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Professor. As per the said Regulation, "Associate Professor completing three years of service in Stage-4 and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher Grade (Stage-5), subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in Table I-III of Appendix IV stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that, no teacher, other than those with a Ph.D., shall be promoted or appointed as Professor." As per Regulation 6.3.2, the candidates who do not secure 50% marks in the Expert Assessment will have to undergo re-assessment after one year. The respondents took a decision to adopt the Regulations, 2010 for the purpose of CAS and also to finalize and approve the guidance score card. While adopting the Regulations, 2010, certain modifications were made by the State Government in which Clause-4 said that Career Advancement Scheme on or after 31.12.2008 shall be strictly as per the revised Regulation, 2010 as stated in para 1.3. of the UGC Regulations dated 30.6.2010. The petitioners were facing stagnation and therefore, made representations through their association to the University for conducting a process for promotion under the CAS as no promotion had taken place since 2001 when 42 promotions were given to the teaching staff as Professors. Out of which, 60% Professors had already retired by the end of 2010. It was also stated in the representation that as per the ICAR and UGC Guidelines, process for promotion should be conducted every year on regular basis. In pursuance of such representations, the University recommended for conducting of personal promotion of teachers under the CAS vide letter dated 4.5.2011.

In order to understand the controversy, we need to refer to the Regulation 6.4.8 and 6.3.2 of the Regulations, 2010, which read:-

"6.4.8. Associate Professor completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher Grade (stage-5), subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in Table I-III of Appendix IV stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that no teacher, other than those with a Ph.D., shall be promoted or appointed as Professor.
(iii) The argument that Universities may adopt their own template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers, too, does not help. As per the Regulation 6.0.2 "the Universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-

assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to the API criteria based PBAS prescribed in these Regulations." Under no circumstances, it states that the marks towards contribution to research and assessment of domain knowledge & teaching practice can be separated from the interview marks under the head of Expert Assessment.

(iv) No doubt, as per the proforma of marks for assessment of Associate Professor for promotion as Professor in CAS placed on record as Annexure-R/1 shows that minimum eligibility required is 50% marks in PBAS (40/80) as well as interview (10/20) separately, but there is no such mention of the same in the proforma of marks-sheet for Assessment/ Direct Recruitment of Professor, supplied to the petitioner through the RTI. Thus, the column was added subsequently by the University while making the assessment, which is not in strict adherence to the API criteria based PBAS prescribed in these Regulations and nor adopted by the University by any resolution. The same is an outcome of wrong and erroneous interpretation.