Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Om Prakash vs Gnctd on 19 December, 2024
1
Item No. 44/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 1151/2023
with
O.A. No. 892/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 1151/2023
with
O.A. No. 892/2023
Reserved on 28.11.2024
Pronounced on 19.12.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati,
Khati Member (A)
1. OA No. 1151/2023
1. Dr. Om Prakash
Aged about 63 years,
Presently posted at Pusa Institute of Technology
S/o Sri R. P. Singh
R/o House No. C-4,
C Sector-9, 9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP)
(UP)-
201009
2. Dr. Umesh Chand
Aged about 52 year
Presently posted at Pusa Institute of Technology
S/o Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma
R/o Flat 5/9, Jackranda Road, Shipra Sun City, Indrapuram,
Ghaziabad (UP)-201014
(UP)
3. Dr. Rajinder Singh
Aged about 57 years
Presently posted at Pusa Institute of Technology
S/o Sri Shivinder Singh
R/o 24/24-B,
24/24 Tilak Nagar
New Delhi-110018
Delhi
4. Dr. Mamata R. Singh
Aged about 50 years
Presently posted at Aryabhatt Institute of Technology
W/o Sri R. K. Singh
Flat No. 22, Sadbhawana Appt., plot No. 13 1.P. Extension, New
Delhi-110092
110092
2
Item No. 44/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 1151/2023
with
O.A. No. 892/2023
5. Dr. Monica Chopra
Aged around 51 years
D/o Late Sh.
Sh Sham Lal Gupta
R/o J-1/63,
1/63, Flat A, Gupta Colony,
Khirki Extension, Malviya nagar,
nagar New Delhi 110017
6. Dr. Sarita Dash
Aged around 54 years
W/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Dash
R/o 752, South Delhi Apartment, Sector 4, Plot No. 8, Dwarka
New Delhi 110075
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Esha Mazumdar)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary
New Secretariat, I.P. Estate
New Delhi-110002.
Delhi
2. Department of Training & Technical Education, GNCTD
Through
hrough Secretary
Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi
Delhi-110088.
3. Department of Training & Technical Education, GNCTD
Through Director
Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi
Delhi-110088.
4. All India Counsel for Technical Education Through Chairman
Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj, New DelhiDelhi-110070
...Respondents
(By Advocates:
Advocate Mr. Amit Yadav and Mr. Gyanendra Singh
Singh)
2. OA No. 892/2023
1. Dr. Vinod Kumar Singoria
3
Item No. 44/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 1151/2023
with
O.A. No. 892/2023
Presently posted at Aryabhatt Institute of Technology
Aged about 55 years, S/o Sri Kanhaiya Lal R/o Flat No. 3,
Pocket No. 2, Sector-A/10,
Sector A/10, Narela, Delhi-110040
2. Dr. Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia
Aged about 61 years
Presently posted at Aryabhatt Institute of Technology S/o Sri
Shyam Lal Ahluwalia R/o A-212,
A 212, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201013
Pradesh
3. Dr. Ram Pal
Aged about 56 years Presently posted at Aryabhatt Institute
of Technology S/o Late Sri Debideen, R/o A/13, Type
Type-4.
Delhi Government Officers Residential Complex, Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi-110088.
Delhi
4. Dr. Shiv Kumar
Aged about 56 year
Presently posted at Aryabhatt Institute of Technology S/o Sri
Raj Narayan Dubey R/oC-520,
520, Rohini Heights, Sector
Sector-29,
Rohini, Delhi-110042
Delhi
5. Dr. Kumar Rakesh Ranjan
Aged about 52 years
Presently posted at Aryabhatt Institute of Technology
S/o Late Sri Shobha Kant Singh
R/o 1/2 Aryabatt Enclave, Ashok Vihar
Vihar-III, Delhi-110052
6. Dr. Manasi Singhi Aged about 54 years Presently posted at
Aryabhatt Institute of Technology W/o Dr. Sharad K. Singhi
R/o D-3,
D 3, UG Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi
Delhi-110092
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Esha Mazumdar)
V/s
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Chief Secretary New
Secretariat, I.P. Estate New Delhi-110001.
Delhi 110001.
2. Department of Training & Technical Education, GNCTD
Through Secretary
4
Item No. 44/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 1151/2023
with
O.A. No. 892/2023
Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi
Delhi-110088.
3. Department of Training & Technical Education, GNCTD
Through Director
D Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, Delhi
Delhi-
110088.
4. All India Counsel for Technical Education
Through Chairman Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi
Delhi-110070
...Respondents
(By Advocates:
Advocate Mr. Amit Yadav and Mr. Gyanendra Singh
Singh)
5
Item No. 44/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 1151/2023
with
O.A. No. 892/2023
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Since a common question of facts and law is iinvolved in the present OAs, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extr extracted primarily from OA No. 892/2023.
2. By virtue of the present OA, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-
reliefs:
"a) Quash and set aside the office order dated 20/05/2022;
b) To direct the respondents to grant the benefit of AGP of Rs.
10000 in pay band-4 band from the due date in time bound manner in accordance with AICTE Regulations and clarifications in vogue on the date of eligibility as applied to other faculty under same AICTE Norms alongwith consequential benefits.
c) Award the cost on respondents for inordinate delay and discrimination to one group of faculty.
Or Pass any further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned earned counsel counsel for the applicants pointed out that vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2022, the following observations have been made, which are being challenged in the present OA:
The Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi while disposing the Ο.Α. Νο.489 & 507/2022 titled Dr. Ashok Kuumar Ahluwalia, Lecturer & Ors v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ordered on 28.02.2022 as follows:
follows:-6
Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 "...the OA is disposed off at the admission stage itself, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with the direction to the respon respondents to decide the latest representation dated 09.12.2020 & 24.11.2021 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicant. There shall be no order aas to costs."
2. That the applicant in OA submitted an application dated 09.12.2020 / 24.11.2021 for grant of AGP of Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/-.
3. That the department had already initiated the process of grant of Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ and therefore, vigilance clearance was sought in r/o candidates vide this office letter dated 13.04.2022, sought including the applicant.
4. That the provision of grant of AGP of Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- was notified by AICTE vide its notification dated 08.11.2012 and subsequently departments adopted the same vide its order dated 29.07.2016.
5. That the provisions of grant of AGP of Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- does not find a mention in AICTE notification dated 01.03.2019. Further, as per para no.2.3 of the notification, the method followed by 7th CPC shall be adopted in the academic pay structure also, moving from the concept of pay band and academic grade pay to the leveis & cells.
6. Furthermore, the effective date of application of service conditions are mentioned in para no.1.4 (a) of the said AICTE notification dated 01.03.2019 as 'all other service conditions including qualifications, experience, Recruitment, Promotions, publications, training and course requirements etc. shall come into force with effect from the date of this gazette notification." and para no.1.4(g) describes to deal with the existing/pending cases as 'In cases, where advertisement was published, applications invited bút interviews have not been conducted till publication of this notification, the institutes/ employers are required to publish corrigendum and pprocessing of applications must be done in accordance with the provisions given in this notification'.
7. As the AICTE is the apex autonornous body to determine the matters of Technical faculty and its notifications are binding over all technical institutions institutions all over India, therefore, ample clear instructions from AICTE Is warranted in any matter where provisions are not well defined, Letter dated 06.05.2022 in this regard on the above said issues has been sent to AICTE with the request to clarify certain issues. 7 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023
8. The applications for grant of AGP of Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- will be processed after the clarification are received from AICTE.
9. This order is Issued in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble CAT dated 28.02.2022 In Ο.Α. Νο.489 & 507/2022 titled Dr. Ashok Ashok Kuumar Ahluwalia, Lecturer & Ors v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors."
3.1 Learned counsel submitted that the the impugned order stipulates that the applications for the grant of AGP (Academic Grade Pay) are to be processed after receiving clarification from the A AICTE. The learned counsel argued that no such clarification is required in the applicants' case.
3.2 The learned counsel for the applicants highlighted that this is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round, two OAs, including OA No. 489/2022, were filed, and the following directions were passed therein:-
"6. In view of the above, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without expressing expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to decide their representations dated 09.12.2020 and 24.11.2021 (Annexure A-11 colly.), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs."
3.3 Narrating the background of the case, learned counsel for the applicants stated that upon implementation of the 6th CPC, the AICTE issued regulations governing pay scales and service conditions for the 8 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 applicants' cadre. Reference is drawn to the AICTE notification dated 05.03.2010,, relevant portion of which reads as under
under:-
"(xiv)
xiv) Head of the Department (HOD), completing 3 years of service in the AGP of Rs. 9000 and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the AICTE, shall be placed in Rs.37400-67000 Rs.37400 67000 with AGP of Rs Rs. 10000."
3.4 Learned counsel further submitted that a subsequent clarification dated 08.11.2012 was issued by the AICTE, addressing the transition of Lecturers from Stage 4 to Stage 5. The relevant portion reads as follows:-
Sl. No. Promotion of Service requirement Minimum Teacher Academic through CAS performance requirements and screening/selection criteria
4. Lecturer Lecturer with three (1)Minimum (Stage 4) to years of completed yearly/cumulative (Stage 5) service in Stage 4. API scores using the PBAS scoring proforma developed by the conec med State Govemment as per the norms provided in Table II(A)/II(B) of Appendix 1.
Teachers may
combine two
assessment periods
(in Stages 2 and 3)
to achieve
minimum API
scores, if required.
(ii) A minimum of
five publications
since the period
that the teacher is
9
Item No. 44/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 1151/2023
with
O.A. No. 892/2023
placed in Stage ).
(iii) A selection
committee process
as stipulated in
these Regulations
and in Tables
II(A) and II(B) of
Appendix 1.
3.5 The learned
arned counsel further emphasized upon the Clause 63 of the notification dated 04.01.2016 issued by the AICTE AICTE, which specifies the preconditions for granting AGP 10,000/-.
10,000/ . The said clause reads as under:-
Sl. No. Issue Clarification
63 Clarity is cited in AICTE Sub-Para (ii)
Regulations, 2012 shall be read as:
(Diploma) in Table III
(page 49): Lecturer (stage A minimum of 03
4) to (Stage 5) sub-Para Para publications since
(ii) in column 4. the period that the teacher is placed in stage 4.
3.6 Learned counsel for the applicants applicant further placed reliance upon the corrigendum issued under the AICTE Regulations, 2012 (Diploma), particularly Table III and Clause 3.9:-
3.9:
"Head of the Department (HOD)/Lecturer (Selection Grade), completing 3 years of service in the AGP of Rs. 9000 and possessing a Ph.D Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the AICTE, shall be placed"10
Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 3.7 The learned counsel argued arg that the stipulation requiring an API Score for AGP 10,000/-
10,000/ was later relaxed by a notification dated 22.11.2018. Reference is made to Clause 38 of the notification dated 04.01.2016:-
Sl. No. Issue Clarification
38. Consideration to relax Relaxation in API
API score (Degree/ score is applicable for
Diploma) between 05th the period of 03 years
Mar. 2010 and issue of only (till date 7-11-
AICTE Regulations, 2012 2015) from the issue
on 8th Nov. 2012. of AICTE Regulations 2012 in Official Gazette. Thereafter, API implemented.
score shall be
implemented.
3.8 Learned counsel for the applicants had further drawn our attention to the circular issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi on 03.08.2017, stating that eligible Lecturers meeting performance criter criteria should be considered for AGP. Relevant Relevant para of the same reads as under
under:-
"The lecturers who meet their eligibility for promotion under CAS in the stage of 2,3 & 4 before 8th November 2015 may apply in existing Performa of the DTTE without PABAS. However, for the stage-5, 5, who are eligible on, S November 2012 or thereafter may apply in a performa alongwith PABAS as per the clause no.24 of AICTE guidelines, 2016."
3.9 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants' names were forwarded by the department through communication dated 28.08.2017, as follows:-
follows:11
Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 Sl. No. Name of Lecturers 1 Dr. Vinod Kumar Singoria (applicant No. 1) 2 Dr. Ashok Kumar Ahlywalia(applicant No. 2)
3. Dr. Ram Pal (applicant No. 3)
4. Dr. Shiv Kumar (applicant No. 4) 5 Dr. Kumar Rakesh Ranjan (applicant No. 7)
6. Dr. Manasi Singhi (applicant No. 11) 3.10 The learned counsel submitted that the AICTE notification dated 01.03.2019, .2019, issued after implementation of the 7th CPC, is the core issue in the present matter. Clause 1.4(b) of the notificat notification is "The Qualifications, Experience, Recruitment and Promotions etc. during 01 01-
01-2016 2016 till the issue of this Gazette Notification shall be governed by All India Council Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulation, 2010 dated 5th March 2010 and subsequent notifications notifications issued from time to time time".
3.11 Clause 'f' of the notification requires an advertisement for inviting applications followed by an interview.
interview. The learned counsel argued that the applicants' cases, which is already under process, do not fall within the purview of Clause 'f'. 3.12 Learned counsel cited analogous cases where similarly situated individuals, such as Sh. R.D. Sharma (benefit granted via Office Order 12 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 dated 13.03.2013) and Dr. Amita Dev (benefit granted via Office Order dated 17.05.2019), were accorded AGP benefits. A clarification issued by AICTE on 04.07.2022 "That a copy of AICTE Regulations 2012 attached herewith as Annexure R1.As per Corrigendum in AICTE Regulations, 2012 (DIPLOMA) issued on 4th January, 2016 in respect of Para -33 and Table IIA.
IIA 3.9 Head of the (HOD) / Lectur Lecturer (Selection Grade), completing 3 years of service in the AGP of Rs. 9000 and possessing a Ph.D Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the AICTE, shall be placed in Rs. 37400-67000 3740 67000 with AGP of Rs.
10000(stage 5)".
3.13 Learned counsel for the applicants applicant further placed reliance upon a clarification dated 04.12.2023 issued by AICTE AICTE, which reads as under:-
"Sub.:Request to issue corrigendum in rio AICTE clarification F. No. 27/P&AP/Pay/01/2022- 23/21 (June) dated 04/07/2022:
Created classification in violation of article 14 of the Constitution reg.
Sir, This is with reference to your letter dated 24.07.2022 on the above subject.
In this connection, it is mentioned that ple please refer AICTE Notification dated. 01.03.2019 on pay scales, service conditions and minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers and other academic staff such as library, physical education and training & placement personnel in technical institutions and measures for the maintenance of standards in institutions technical education (degree) at clause 1.4 (A), (b) and (c) are self self-explanatory.13
Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
3.14 Learned counsel for the applicant further highlights the Clause 2.25 of the Notification dated 01.03.2019 issued by AICTE regarding pay fixation "The fixation of pay and designations of incumbents in the revised pay scales shall be as given in Annexure - I. Incumbent faculty members / principals who are in AGP of 10,000/ 10,000/- as per 6th CPC, shall be fixed in the appropriate cell corresponding to Level 14 of pay matrix table recommended by 7th CPC."
4. Opposing pposing the grant of relief, learned co counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 does not suffer from illegality. They contend that the decision is pending consideration in light of clarifications and that the present OA is premature. 4.1 The respondents rely on Clauses 7 and 8 of the impugned order, asserting that they are clear and do not require further adjudication. They further argue that the benefits granted in analogous cases, such as Sh. R.D. Sharma, were specific to his eligibility after completing three years in AGP 9,000/-
9,000/ (w.e.f. 11.12.2022) and were aligned with the AICTE notification dated 05.03.2010.
05.03.2010 14 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 4.2 The learned counsel emphasized that the real issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicants are eligible for AGP 10,000/ 10,000/- and whether clarification is required required in this context or not.
21. A Date of Date from Date of Ph. Whether Due date chart Joining in which D earned publish for grant highlighting DTTE placed in ed 03 of AGP of AGP Rs. papers Rs. 10000 the 9000 prior to (stage -5) eligibility ity (Lecturer, 8.11.20 dates for Selection 15 AGP is grade, submitted stage-4) at Page 11 of the OA, OA which reads as under:
Name of
faculty
Ashok Kumar 22.5.1992 01.01.2006 15.01.2009 yes 8.11.2 012
Ahluwalia
Vinod Kumar 22.5.1996 22.05.2010 16.04.2015 yes 16.4.2 015
Singhoria
Ram Pal 28.5.1997 15.3.2012 15.3.2012 yes 15.3.2 015
Shiv Kumar 01.8.2000 01.8.2012 13.4.2009 yes 01.8.2 015
Kumar 26.5.1998 26.5.2011 05.5.2015 yes 05.5.2 015
Rakesh
Ranjan
Manasi 28.9.2000 28.9.2012 6.8.1995 yes 28.9.2015
Singhi
4.3 The learned counsel further contends that the applicants' due dates
fall prior to 01.03.2019, rendering API score relaxation irrelevant. 15
Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) is provided for the administrative and technical category subject to the condition that they should put in certain number of years of service as given below at each level and have satisfactory performance as evaluated by an appropriate review committee/authority. Guidelines for career upgradation for teaching employees under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) would be followed byy the guidelines of AICTE/UGC ((as the case may be) from time me to time where an employee will be allowed to move to respective next higher Grade Pay, subject to satisfactory performance and duly approved by the Competent Authority.
6.2 In Civil Appeal No(S).
N (S). 2575 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31892 of 2018) titled as National Institute Of Technology & Another Versus Om Prakash Rahi & Others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"29. We would like to observe that the guidelines issued by the MHRD from time to time for revision of pay structure and re designation of the teachers in NITs are in the form of accelerated promotions, remain coterminus coterminus with the person and are not related to post based promotions under the relevant recruitment rules, however, such scheme is not available under the Act, Act, 2007 and after the amendment notification dated 21st July, 2017, Schedule 'E' has been appended in exercise of power under the clause 23(5)(a) of the statute laying down the qualifications and other terms and 16 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 conditions of appointment of academic staff tto be made through open advertisement on the recommendations of the selection committee until exempted under the scheme of theserules.
30. To clarify it further, CAS scheme by its very nomenclature called Career Advancement Scheme introduced for teachers like like Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP), later called MACP for Central Government employees to overcome the problem of stagnation and hardship faced due to lack of adequate promotion avenues, it nowhere tinker with the conditions of eligibility for app appointment to the cadre posts included in schedule 'E' annexed to the statute pursuant to which qualifications and other terms and conditions of appointment of academic staff are included vide notification dated 21st July 2017."
6.3 Denying enying the benefit to the applicants from the date of eligibility, cannot be sustained. The stand of the respondents that revised pay scale / Career Advancement Scheme was to apply from in terms of OM dated 1.3.2019 also cannot be accepted as it is prospective in nature and cannot not be applied retrospectively unless and otherwise provided for. 6.4 In Dr. Rajendra Mishra vs University Of Jammu And Others decided on 29 October, 2021, the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court held as under :-
:
"20. In order to appreciate the present controversy, it is apt to take note of the Clause 6.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 dated 30.06.2010 and the same are reproduced as under: "A teacher who wishes to be considered for promotion under CAS may submit in writing to the university/colle university/college, with three months in advance of the due date, that he/she fulfils all qualifications under CAS and submit to the university/college the Performance Based Appraisal System proforma as evolved by the concerned university duly supported by all credentials as per the API guidelines set out in these Regulations. In order to avoid delays in holding Selection Committees meetings in various positions under CAS, the University/College should immediately initiate the process of screening/selection, and shall complete complete the process within six months from the date of 17 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 application. Further, in order to avoid any hardships, candidates who fulfill all other criteria mentioned in these Regulations, as on 31 December, 2008 and till the date on which this Regulation is notified, notified, can be considered for promotion from the date, on or after 31 December, 2008, on which they fulfill these eligibility conditions, provided as mentioned above."
6.5 The Regulation 6.3.1 6.3.1 envisages two situations. The first part of this Regulation is applicable to a candidate who earns eligibility to promotion after coming into force of these Regulations and in such case, he/she is under obligation to apply three months prior to the du due date, for consideration of her/his case under Career Advancement Scheme. The University Grant Commission Regulations (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the Maintenance Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 came to be notified on 30.06.2010. The above mentioned Regulations provide for that the teacher who wishes to be considered for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme may submit in writing to the University/college with three months in advance of the due date, that he/she fulfills all qualifications under the Career Advancement Scheme and submit to the University/college the Performance Based Appraisal System performa as evolved by the concerned rned University duly supported by all credentials as per the API guidelines set out in these Regulations. Further in order to avoid delay in holding the Selection Committee meetings, the university/college has 18 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 been called upon to initiate the process of sc screening/selection and complete the same within six months from the date of application. 6.6 The second part of the Regulation 6.3.1 .3.1 provides that candidates who fulfilled all other criteria mentioned in these Regulations as on 31.12.2008 and till date these Regulations are notified can be considered for promotion from the date on or after 31.12.2008 on which they fulfill these eligibility conditions provided as mentioned above. This part of the Regulationss is applicable to those candidates who have already attained the eligibility for being considered for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme as on 31.12.2008 or before these Regulations are notified.
6.7 The expression "due date" used in the Regul Regulation (supra) is nowhere defined explicitly but the tone and tenor of the first part of the Regulation reveals that the due date would mean the date of acquisition of eligibility. This is substantiated by the circular dated 24.03.2017 issued by the respondent respondent No:1 that if the candidate applies later than his/her eligibility date, no claim for retrospective promotion/placement under CAS shall be entertained.
6.8 Admittedly these regulations were notified on 30.06.2010. There is no quarrel between the parties es that the applicants earned eligibility on 19 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 04.08.2009 whereas the present Regulations were notified on 30.06.2010. The period of limitation of three months as provided in the first part of the Clause 6.3.1 is applicable to those candidates who earned eligibility after 31.12.2008 or the notification of these Regulations. Thus the candidates who attains eligibility after the notification of regulations have to apply for promotion with three months in advance of the due date whereas in case of candidates who have already attained the eligibility prior to the enforcement of these Regulations, the limitation of three months become meaningless. In case the intention of the UGC had been to provide limitation for even those candidates who had acquired the eligibility bility prior to the notification of the regulations, then UGC would have specifically provided the limitation of three months eve even for those candidates as well.
6.9 In W.P.(C) 10564/2019 Dr. Kiran gupta versus The University Of Delhi decided on 8.3.2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under :-
:
"19. Rather, it is seen that the petitioners have been found fit on their first assessment itself for promotion to the post of Professor. If that be so, the petitioners could not have been denied the promotion from the date of eligibility when the promotion with prospective effect is based on the same material. promotion In fact, I find that by giving the recommendations prospectively, the Selection Committee has deferred the promotion of the petitioners from May 08, 2009 to June 25, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 10564/2019; fromfrom September 15, 2014 to June 25, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 10744/2019 and from April 27, 2012 to June 25, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 10789/2019. The same clearly demonstrates the prejudice that has been caused to the 20 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 petitioners due to the recommendation of the Selec Selection Committee, promoting the petitioners prospectively from the date of interview.
20. Insofar as the reliance placed by Mr. Rupal on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (supra) that it is not necessary for the Selection Committee to give reasons for its conclusion, suffice to state, the Supreme Court had given a finding to that effect in cases where the rules do not contemplate so. There is no dispute on the said proposition of law. But in view of reading of the relevant Regulations, which I have already referred to above, surely there must be some expression of the fact / reason in case a teacher is not found fit in a particular year but found fit in a later year. In the absence of such conclusion, it must be said that this teacher is found fit from the date of eligibility.
21. In view of the above, the petitions need to be allowed. The proceedings of the Selection Committee / Executive Council / communication dated July 04, 2019 are sset aside to the extent that promotion has been given to the petitioners to the post of Professor is made prospectively i.e. from June 25, 2019. The said promotion shall relate back to their date of eligibility. No costs."
6.10 In S.K. Nagarajan vs The Vice-Chancellor Chancellor decided on 13 July, 2023, in WA No.1807/2022, the Hon'ble Madras High Court observed as under :-
"10. In this regard, it is to be seen that the Career Advancement Scheme while prescribing upgradation of Grade Pay as well as granting promotion promotion is not strictly 'promotion' understood in the traditional meaning of the concept. The career advancement scheme is aimed at granting an batch upgradation of pay as well as post on completion of a certain number of years by each faculty member as well as as on achievement/completion of certain other parameters as prescribed under the Regulations. The very same UGC Regulations also prescribe that the Screening Screening- cum -
Evaluation committee which evaluates the applications of the faculty members in respect of promotion promotion under the CAS as well as conduct interviews in respect of promotions to the post of Associate Professor as well as Professor and Senior Professor, must meet every six months and applications should be called for from the faculty members eligible underunder the scheme every six months. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the CAS selection / Screening -cum - Evaluation committee was not 21 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 constituted for at least seven years and during the said period, many number of faculty members had become eli eligible for various posts of promotion as well as upgradation in pay on completion of certain number of years in a particular post as well as on acquiring other eligibility criteria which is required for promotion. As a result of CAS evaluation and interview committees not being constituted for a number of years, several faculty members who became eligible for more than one promotion during the said period, had applied for promotion under the UGC career advancement scheme for more than one stage of promotion, to which they became eligible under the Scheme.
***********
16. When the intention of the legislature is easy to gather from the plain words employed therein, there is no reason for this court to interpret it otherwise. Accordingly, when the very intention of the career advancement scheme is more in the nature of personal promotion to be granted in order to batch avoid stagnation among the faculty members, and each achieves upgradation in grade pay as well as promotion to the next post depending on the number of years of service and they have put in along with acquiring other eligibility criteria like API Scores, as well as completion of courses, as required under the UGC Regulations, treating the same as an ordinary promotion where qualifying perioperiod of service is required in each post, is contrary to the plain terms as mentioned in the UGC Regulations, which are statutory regulations under the UGC Act and are binding on every University. The fact thatthat the respondent University has not conducted the CAS Selection/Screening Selection/Screening- cum-Evaluation committee for the past so many years itself is a violation of the UGC Regulations. While it is incumbent upon the University to conduct such committee from time to time time as required under the UGC Regulations, it would be sheer injustice to the faculty members if the University while itself violating the UGC Regulations, also deprives the faculty members of their right to be considered for promotion which is a fundament fundamental right as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, apart from defeating the very object of the UGC Career Advancement Scheme. One can imagine imagine a situation, for instance, if an Assistant Professor becomes eligible to be appointed as Associate Professor in the year 2010 and if the CAS committee is not conducted till 2017, then, he will have lost his chance to be promoted as Associate Professor for many years and his further promotion to the next level post of Professor may never be granted if the CAS committee is not held for another few years and the faculty member will be forced to retire at a lower post inspite of being eligible for promotion.
promotion. This would also mean that the number of years of eligibility as mentioned in the Regulations will be thrown 22 Item No. 44/ C-5 C O.A. No. 1151/2023 with O.A. No. 892/2023 to the winds. This example will expose the fallacy in the argument of the respondent University."
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the above analysis, we allow the present O.A.s and quash and set aside the office order dated 20.05.2022. Accordingly, we issue a common direction to the respondents in both the O.A.s that they shall grant the benefit of AGP of Rs. 10000 in pay band - 4 to the applicants from their due date in a time bound manner and also in accordance with AICTE Regulations and clarifications in vogue on the date of eligibility. Consequential benefits in accordance with the rules shall also flow to the applicants.
applicant 7.2. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr.
Dr. Anand S Khati)
Khati (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/