1
Court No. 4
Writ Petition No.1305 (S/B) of 2007
Dr. Ajay Kumar Sharma & ors vs. Chancellor, Lucknow University & ors
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon. Dr. Satish Chandra, J.
Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Alok
Mathur appears for respondent no.1.
All the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in the respective
departments in Lucknow University. All of them were allowed Reader’s scale
w.e.f. 27.7.1998, and were given the designation as Readers w.e.f. 22.10.2001
except petitioner No. 4. He was given Reader’s designation on 3.5.2001.
The petitioners were considered for promotion under the ‘Career
Advancement Scheme’ in the month of January/February, 2007. The
recommendations of the Selection Committee were not put up before the
Executive Committee for four months and thus in terms of Section 31 (8) (aa)
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the recommendations were referred to
the Chancellor. By his order dated July 3, 2007, the Chancellor did not agree
with the recommendations on the ground that on the dates, when the
Selection Committees met i.e. 4.1.2007 and 22.2.2007, the Statutes in terms
of the ‘Career Advancement Scheme’ were neither made nor amended and
thus the meeting of the Selection Committee could not be held in accordance
with the law. The petitioners filed this Writ Petition in which on 25.10.2007
this Court after hearing both the parties passed following orders:
“Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Sri
Devendra Arora and on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 notice has
been accepted by Sri I.B. Singh. The respondents pray for and are
granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sandeep
Dixit, is that the view expressed by the Chancellor and Executive Council
on 20th February 2007 for considering the promotion under Career
Advancement Scheme on the post of Professor was not valid because the
Statute was amended as per the assent given by the Chancellor only on
20th June 2007 and for that mater direction to hold a fresh Selection
Committee requires reconsideration by the Chancellor, in view of the fact
that the amended Statute namely; 11.24 gives the promotion under
Career Advancement Scheme from the date of eligibility of the incumbent
2
or from 27th July 1998 whichever is later, and not from the date of
taking over the charge of the higher post, and therefore, even if, the
Selection Committee had recommended promotion prior to the assent
given by the Chancellor to the proposed amended Statute which was
being done in pursuance of the directive issued by the University Grant
Commission, no prejudice would be caused to any person and the benefit
of the promotion will be given to the petitioner from the date of
eligibility irrespective of the date, on which the Statute was amended.
Sri Devendra Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 1 could not satisfy the Court on the said issue otherwise and about
the outcome of the orders passed by the Chancellor which in fact, though
means holding of a fresh meeting but again the benefit of the promotion
would be given from the date to which the petitioner is entitled under the
Act.
We, therefore, provide as an interim measure that the Chancellor
may reconsider his direction for holding of fresh Selection Committee in
view of the pleadings of the writ petition and also in view of the
arguments raised before us which have been referred to above. We expect
that a period of four weeks will be sufficient for this purpose for the
Chancellor to take a decision. We direct that in the meantime the later
portion of the order dated 3.7.2007 in which direction for holding fresh
meeting has been given, shall remain in abeyance.”
The matter was reconsidered by the Chancellor. By his decision dated
22.1.2008, the Chancellor has reiterated his earlier view and has directed the
University to act accordingly.
Learned counsel for petitioners has challenged both the orders of the
Chancellor on the grounds, that by Government Order dated 16.1.2007 the
amendment to the paragraph14 of the ‘Career Advancement Scheme’ dated
3.5.2001 (also incorporated as Statute 11.24 of the Statutes of Lucknow
University), was approved by the Chancellor on 16.6.2007. The amendment
did not make any difference to the eligibility and the right of the eligible
candidates to be considered for promotion. The only change brought about by
the amendment is that whereas in the unamended para 14 the next higher
grade was admissible from the date of eligibility, or 27.7.1998, whichever is
later, but the designation (if any) was to be given from the date of taking over
charge; the amendment made on the recommendation of the University Grants
3
Commission provides for grant of both the next higher grade as well as
designation to be admissible from the date of eligibility or 27.7.1998,
whichever is later.
It is submitted that the amendment will not make any difference to the
selections made prior to the amendment, under the ‘Career Advancement
Scheme’. It will only make a difference to the admissibility of designation
from the date of eligibility or 27.7.1998, whichever is later. In the case of all
the petitioners they will get the promotions from the date of eligibility, as all
of them were eligible for promotions.
Shri Alok Mathur appearing for Chancellor would submit that since the
amendment was proposed and was under consideration of the Vice Chancellor,
the Selection Committee could not be held prior to the consideration of the
amendment. He would submit that the amendment may not affect the
eligibility of the petitioners, or the proceedings of the Selection Committee but
that the resultant benefit could be given only after the amendment was
approved by the Chancellor.
Learned counsel appearing for the University has not denied that the
amended ‘Career Advancement Scheme’ was in vogue, prior to the
amendment, and that the pendency of the proposal of the amendments and
its approval by the Chancellor, will not make any difference to the
recommendations made by the Selection Committee.
After hearing learned counsel for parties, we find that the then
Chancellor appears to have taken the decision under an impression that prior
to the amendment there was no provision for the ‘Career Advancement
Scheme’ and that the Selection Committee could not be convened to make
selections and recommendations for appointments. He has not taken into
consideration the observations made by the Court in the order dated
25.10.2007 and the ‘Career Advancement Scheme’ issued on 13.5.2001 w.e.f.
27.7.1998.
It is also not denied by the respondents that the petitioners were
eligible to be considered and that the recommendations made by the Selection
Committee were valid. The ‘Career Advancement Scheme’ was in existence
since 3.5.2001 w.e.f. 27.7.1998. The pendency of the proposal of the
amendment in the scheme could not have taken away the right of the
petitioners to be considered by the Selection Committee constituted by the
University in accordance with the then existing provisions, when all the
petitioners had become eligible to be promoted as Professors under the ‘Career
Advancement Scheme’, on 27.7.2006, and that both the Selection Committees
4
were constituted after the date of their entitlement, i.e. after 27.7.2006. The
Universities Grant Commission (UGC) had recommended on 1.12.2006, for
amendment in the ‘Career Advancement Scheme’. These recommendations of
UGC were binding on the Universities and were only formalised by making
amendment in the scheme, after approval of the Chancellor on 16.6.2007.
The orders of the Chancellor dated 3.7.2007 and 22.1.2008 are clearly
unsustainable. We therefore allow the writ petition and while setting aside the
order of the Chancellor dated 22.1.2008, as well as his earlier order dated
3.7.2007, issue a writ of mandamus directing him to consider the
recommendations of the Selection Committee, in the matter of promotions of
the petitioners afresh in accordance with the observations made in the
judgment and the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, as
expeditiously as possible.
Dt.4.01.2010
RKP/