JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-grant of selection grade of Lecturer pursuant to Career Development Scheme (for short ‘CDS’). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was an Ph.D. and was entitled to designation of a Reader. The petitioner’s case is that on the basis of circular issued by the respondent on 25.6.1990 and in view of the policy adopted by the respondent for CDS, promotions were to be made under CDS from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date of approval of the promotion by the competent authority. My attention was drawn to the said circular which is at page-12 of the paper book. The last paragraph of the said circular, at page-17 of the paper book, reads as under :-
“Promotions made under Career Development Scheme shall be from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date of approval of the promotion by the competent authority. As the scheme is effective from 1-1-86, the date of eligibility will be 1-1-86 or completion of the stipulated period of service whichever is later.”
3. The petitioner is appearing in person. She says that her counsel wanted an adjournment but she would like to argue the matter in person. Pursuant to her request, I have heard the petitioner.
4. Another grievance of the petitioner is that in the Selection Committee which met on 8.10.1996 a person, who was associated in the Selection Committee as an external expert, Dr.Mohit Bhattacharya, was not from the discipline of Psychology and she has done her Ph.D. In Psychology. The petitioner has contended that in the past merit was not the criteria for promotion for grant of selection grade to the Lecturer and she has cited the cases of Pranab Banerjee, Shekhar Singh and M K Narain. It was also contended that Pranab Banerjee and Shekhar Singh were not even Ph.D. but after completion of 16 years of service as Lecturer, they were considered eligible for promotion by the respondent under CDS. The petitioner has contended that as per scheme of CDS, which is at pages-15 to 17 of the paper book, pertaining to Lecturer’s selection grade, the scheme on which reliance has been placed by both the side provides the following :-
“…………………………..
(ii) Lecturers (Selection Grade – Rs.3700-5700)
(a) The eligibility would be completion of 16 years service as Lecturer (13 years if Ph.D. And 15 years if M.Phil) out of which at least 6 years of continuous service (3 years if Ph.D. And 5 years if M.Phil) immediately preceding the date of eligibility for promotion should be in IIPA.
(b) The Selection Committee of IIPA constituted by the Executive Council shall evaluate the candidates for promotion. The Selection Committee, may at its discretion require candidates to appear for interview.
5. Training Programme
6. Regarding participation in refresher and training courses, arrangements shall be made to organise training programmes either at IIPA or deputing IIPA faculty member to attend appropriate training courses in other institutions. Such training courses would cover discipline and training and research methodology and other relevant aspects. Till arrangements are made for such training programmes, the condition regarding participation in refresher courses for promotion stand relaxed and the promotion will be effected with the understanding that the training will be arranged in due course. These arrangements would be reviewed by the Standing Committee after one year.
7. Promotions made under Career Development Scheme shall be from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date of approval of the promotion by the competent authority. As the scheme is effective from 1-1-86, the date of eligibility will be 1-1-86 or completion of the stipulated period of service whichever is later.”
8. On the aforesaid premises, it was contended that denial of promotion by the respondent was whimsical, arbitrary and irrational as petitioner was entitled to said promotion after 13 years of teaching as a Lecturer as petitioner was Ph.D. It was further contended that the case of the petitioner in the Selection Committee meeting held on 8.10.1996 was ‘deferred’. It was argued that the respondent could not have deferred the case of the petitioner in view of the specific provisions made in scheme that the petitioner or other persons, who were eligible under the CDS in terms of their eligibility i.e. after completion of 16 years of service as Lecturer and 13 years of service in the case of the petitioner, who has done Ph.D., would be eligible for promotion and the Selection Committee, which was constituted by the Executive Council, was to promote the petitioner as the scheme itself postulates the same and the scheme, which was adopted by the respondent no.1 was for advancement of career in view of specific numbers of years having been spent as Lecturer by the petitioner.
9. On the other hand, Ms.Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has contended that the respondent on 16.12.1998 has circulated the applicability of the scheme and has placed reliance at pages-227 and 228 of the paper book. To buttress her argument that scheme as adopted for career development was to the following effect :-
“……………………………….
Career Advancement
(vi)…………………………………………
(vii) Every Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader in the scale of Rs.3700-5700 if he/se has :
(a) completed 8 years of service in the senior scale, provided that the requirement of 8 years will be relaxed if the total service of the lecturer is not less than 16 years;
(b) obtained an Ph.D. Degree, or an equivalent published work;
(c) made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced by self-assessment, reports or references, quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula, etc.
(d) participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes each of approximately 4 weeks duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as ma be specified by the UGC, after placements in the Senior Scale; and
(e) consistently good performance appraisal reports.
(viii) Promotion to the post of Reader will be through a process of selection by a Selection Committee to be set up under the Statutes/Ordinances of the University concerned or other similar Committees of the University concerned or other similar Committees set up by the appointing authorities in accordance with the guidelines to be laid down the UGC…………………..”
10. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid, it was contended before this Court that element of selection and merit was an important factor for CDS. Another contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that in the year 1996 when the petitioner was considered, the case of the petitioner was not rejected but it was deferred. However, it was contended by Mr.Mahajan that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 28.8.1998 had mentioned that the Selection Committee had considered the case of the petitioner on 8.10.1996 but did not find her suitable for promotion at that time. It was contended that the petitioner was promoted in 1998 by grant of senior scale as Lecturer under CDS and has relied upon ICAR Vs. Satish Kumar and anr. .
11. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. University Grants Commission (in short ‘UGC’) formulated two schemes keeping in view the stagnation in the Universities and Colleges throughout the country in the grade of Lecturer, i.e. ‘Merit Promotion Scheme’ and ‘Career Development Scheme’ (CDS). In this matter, we are not concerned with Merit Promotion Scheme. We are concerned with CDS. In view of the fact that UGC had laid down certain parameters as to how the scheme pursuant to Career Development has to be followed, some kind of model guidelines were issued in this regard by the UGC, reference of which has been made by counsel for the respondents. At page-226 and 227 of the paper book is the letter of the respondents, inter alia, circulating the said scheme formulated by UGC. The said circular of 1998 of the respondent is based on UGC’s guidelines. Regarding promotion to the post of a Reader through the process of selection by Selection Committee to be set up under statute or ordinance of the university concerned or other similar Committee set up by the appointing authority in accordance with the guidelines to be laid down by the UGC has been mentioned. Mindful of those recommendations respondents themselves constituted a Committee headed by Prof.M B Mathur and the report of Mathur Committee was approved by the Standing Committee and Executive Council of the respondents on 5.5.1990. Mathur Committee report on 5.6.1990, which has been reproduced herein above, after taking all aspects of the matter into consideration, has recommended that for the purpose of CDS the promotion was to be made from the date of eligibility irrespective of date of approval of the promotion by the competent authority. The question is as to when the petitioner became eligible. According to the petitioner, petitioner became eligible for grant of selection grade of Lecturer on 10.7.1995. There is no dispute from the side of respondent that petitioner was eligible on 10.7.1995 to be considered for availing the benefit under CDS. I have produced the original minutes of Selection Committee of 8.10.1996. The Selection Committee has only stated that petitioner’s case is deferred. Although in a resolution adopted by the Executive Council on 25.8.1998, Executive Council has tried to explain that the case of petitioner was deferred as she was not found suitable. When Selection Committee has not used the expression “that petitioner was not found suitable”, how the Executive Council after two years could have mentioned that the petitioner was not found suitable. Every selection process which is based on number of years spent in the post will have an element no doubt of appraisal of looking in the records and performance of the incumbent who has become eligible for consideration for benefits under CDS is postulated in the CDS Scheme adopted by respondent but until and unless there is something on record to show that the petitioner was not fit, expression used by the Selection Committee as ‘deferred’ cannot be interpreted after two years that the petitioner was not fit for selection. After all the scheme is to ensure to the benefit of the Lecturers and the selection vis-a-vis the work of the incumbent, his/her ACR as well as other work was to be considered by the Selection Committee. Selection Committee has not mentioned that petitioner was unfit. Same has to be judged with the objective of the scheme and when the Selection Committee does not deal with the merit or demerit of the petitioner, the action of the respondents in substituting its own explanation was totally irrational, arbitrary and illegal as that would amount to substituting its own judgment for that of the Selection Committee. The case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents ICAR Vs. Satish Kumar and anr. (supra) has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case as in that case CDS was not under consideration.
12. There was yet another argument raised before me by the petitioner that Dr.Mohit Bhattacharya, although an external expert was not an expert in the field of Psychology. Ms.Mahajan has contended that Psychology is a part of behaviorial Sciences and Dr.Mohit Bhattacharya was considered as an expert of behaviorial Sciences. This has been disputed by the petitioner who has filed the bio-data of Dr.Mohit Bhattacharya. Dr.Mohit Bhattacharya seems to be a knowledgeable person in the field of Municipal Administration and Political Science, how such a person can be an expert of subject like Psychology or behaviorial Sciences. I would not like to go further in the matter as it is not necessary because I am quashing the decision of the respondents in substituting its own judgment ‘not found fit’ in 1998 which expression was not used by the Selection Committee in 1996. In any event of the matter as per Mathur Committee’s recommendations of CDS, petitioner will be eligible for grant of grade of senior scale of Lecturer/Reader from the date of eligibility in this case, petitioner became eligible on 10.7.1995.
13. I have been told that during the pendency of the writ petition in October’2001 the petitioner has been promoted as a Reader, I allow the writ petition. Petition shall be entitled for grant of selection grade of Lecturer or Reader, whichever is applicable in the case of the petitioner, under CDS from 10.7.1995, when the petitioner became eligible under CDS. Rule is made absolute.
14. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.