NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY vs. OM PRAKASH RAHI

  NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).       2575        OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31892 of 2018) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF  TECHNOLOGY & ANOTHER ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS OM PRAKASH RAHI & OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).      2576         OF 2022      (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31890 of 2018)    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).       2577         OF 2022      (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 32025 of 2018)    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).       2578          OF 2022      (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31445 of 2018)    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).       2579         OF 2022      (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31900 of 2018) J U D G M E N T

1. Leave granted. 1 2. The present batch of appeals are directed against the self­ st same judgment dated 31  July, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla which upheld the order passed by the Director of the National Institute of Technology without going through the process of selection of the teachers in the higher pay band of Rs. 37400­67000 with AGP Rs.9000 and re­ designated as Associate Professor consequent upon completion of th three years of service in AGP Rs.8000(6  Central Pay Commission) and   directed   the   appellants   to   consider   their   claim   for   further promotion   to   the   post   of   Professor,   and   if   found   suitable,   the teacher may be promoted from the due date with all consequential benefits. 3. The facts in brief have been taken note from Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil)   No.   31892   of   2018,   culled   out   from   the   record   and relevant   for   the   purpose   are   that   the   appellant­institution,   was initially   the   Regional   Engineering   College(REC)   (H.P.),   Hamirpur. Consequent upon conversion of 14 NITs and 3 RECs including the present institution at Hamirpur as National Institute of Technology with deemed university status, they were taken over as fully funded 2 th institutions of Central Government by notification dated 14  May, 2003 wherein it was decided with the approval of the competent authority to implement Career Advancement Scheme(CAS) in NITs after approval of the recommendations of the Selection Committee by the Board of Governors(BOGs) of the NIT concerned by Office th Memorandum dated 15   September, 2003 and prescribed service conditions   of   the   teachers/employees   of   the   then   RECs   upon conversion   as   NITs   with   deemed   university   status   by   later th notification dated 9  November, 2003. 4. Later, Parliament enacted the National Institute of Technology th Act, 2007 w.e.f. 6   June, 2007 wherein the appellant institution finds place in the first Schedule appended to the Act at Serial No. 5 in the list of central institutions incorporated and correspondingly became the NIT, Hamirpur and later by the NIT (Amendment) Act, th 2012 vide notification dated 8  June 2012, it became the National Institute   of   Technology(Science,   Education   and   Research)   Act, 2007(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 2007”).  5. The respondent­teachers were initially appointed as a Lecturer in   their   respective   Engineering   Department   in   the   then   REC, 3 th Hamirpur(now NIT Hamirpur) on 28   June 2000.   Later, on the recommendations   of   the   staff   selection   committee,   respondent teachers were designated as Lecturers(Sr. Scale) in the pay scale of th Rs.10000­15200 with the approval of Board of Governors w.e.f. 25 th July,   2005   vide   order   dated   30   December,   2005   and   later th pursuant   to   the   recommendations   of   the   6   Central   Pay th Commission notified by letter dated 18  August, 2009, respondent teachers were placed as Assistant Professors in AGP Rs.6000 w.e.f. st st 1   January, 2006 and granted AGP Rs.7000 w.e.f. 1   July, 2006 th vide pay fixation order dated 20   January 2010.   Further, on the recommendations of the selection committee in terms of directives of   Ministry   of   Human   Resource   Development   (hereinafter   being th th referred to as the “MHRD”) dated 14  March, 2012 and 18  March 2013   and   with   due   approval   of   the   Board   of   Governors,   NIT, Hamirpur, they were fixed in the AGP Rs.8000 vide orders dated th th 25  June, 2013 and 12  November, 2013 respectively.  The orders passed by the competent authority granting AGP of Rs.8000 are not the subject matter of challenge. 4 6. It may be noticed that earlier, such of the Assistant Professors and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had completed the requisite period of service in the appropriate pay scale with the approval of the competent authority, were re­designated as Associate Professor in   the   pay   scale/pay   band   PB­4   (Rs.37400­67000)   with   AGP nd Rs.9000   by   an   order   dated   22   June   2010   as   per   the   MHRD th st guidelines dated 18  August, 2009 and letter dated 31  December, 2008.  7. But this time, the Director of the NIT, on its own, on mere completion of three years in the AGP Rs.8000, without undergoing the process of selection or the recommendations being made with the approval of the Board of Governors, granted benefit of AGP Rs.9000 with re­designation as Associate Professor to all the six respondent   teachers   and   one   of   the   orders   for   the   purpose   of reference is reproduced hereunder:­ “NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HAMIRPUR(H.P.)­177005 Office Order Consequent upon the completion of 03 years of service in AGP th 8000(6  CPC) by Dr. O.P. Rahi on 24/07/2013, he is hereby placed in the higher pay band of Rs. 37400­67000 with AGP 9000 and 5 designated as Associate Professor w.e.f. 25/07/2013 in term with para 2 (a)(x) of Govt. of India, Ministry of HRD, New Delhi letter No. st 1­32/2006­U.I(i) dated 31  December 2008. The above incumbent will be entitled to draw the basic pay of 12400+AGP 9000 w.e.f. 19/10/2013 subject to verification by audit and   subsequent   direction,   if   any,   received   from   MHRD   in   this regard. By Order DIRECTOR NIT HAMIRPUR(HP) Dt 27/10/14 NIT/HMR/Admn/Rev­270(Vol­18)/2014/6435­47 Copy to: 1.Above named officer through HOD, MED 2.Dy. Registrar(Accounts), NIT Hamirpur(HP) 3.PF of the individual REGISTRAR        NIT HAMIRPUR(HP)” 8. Since it was not approved by MHRD as it was held to be in th th contravention to the guidelines dated 14   March, 2012 and 18 March 2013, that became the cause of grievance to approach the High Court by filing the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.   9. The   High   Court,   under   the   impugned   judgment,   held   that MHRD was not the authority competent to issue guidelines after the Act, 2007 came into force and since the statute, for the first time, 6 was incorporated/enacted  in  2017,  laying  down  the  recruitment rules   relating   to   the   promotion   of   teachers   in   NIT   having   been incorporated by an amendment to the statute by clause 23(5)(a) on st 21  July, 2017 whereby schedule ‘E’ has been appended providing qualifications and other terms and conditions for academic staff of NITs which may be applicable prospectively and accordingly upheld their placement in the higher pay band of Rs. 37400­67000 with AGP Rs.9000 and their re­designation as Associate Professor with a further direction for their consideration to the post of Professor in accordance with the guidelines which have now been enforced in the year 2017. 10. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that   MHRD st guidelines dated 31  December, 2008 on which the High Court has heavily relied upon are not applicable to the NIT.  To the contrary, after the Act, 2007 came into force, the first statute in exercise of its rd power under Section 26(1) of the Act was notified on 23   April, 2009 which did not contain any provision for Career Advancement Scheme and it has been introduced by the MHRD to deal with the genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the teachers and to meet 7 such exigency, higher pay grade or re­designation will be on ‘in­situ’ basis and, therefore, the work allocation remains the same and that is   the   reason   for   which   each   of   the   respondent   teachers   was th appointed in the AGP Rs.8000 by an order dated 25  June, 2013 th th and   12   November,   2013   in   terms   of   the   guidelines   dated  14 th March,   2012   read   with   18   March,   2013   based   on   the recommendations made by the duly constituted committee. In the given facts and circumstances, the High Court has committed the st manifest error in relying upon the guidelines of MHRD dated 31 December   2008,   which   is   not   applicable   to   NIT   teachers,   in consequence,   the   finding   which  has   been  recorded   by   the   High Court in upholding the orders passed by the Director granting AGP Rs.9000 merely on completion of three years’ service and their re­ designation   as   Associate   Professor   being,   per   se,   illegal   is   not sustainable in law. 11. Learned counsel further submits that while granting benefit of AGP Rs.9000 and their re­designation as Associate Professor, the Director is not the authority competent in terms of the provisions of the Act 2007, at the same time, AGP Rs.9000 and re­designation as 8 Associate   Professor   was   made   subject   to   verification   and subsequent direction of MHRD in this regard, hence no right could be said to be vested in favour of the respondent teachers and that is the reason, the matter, at one stage, was sent to the committee and since   the   committee   also   raised   certain   objections,   matter   was referred to MHRD for seeking clarification and MHRD recorded its finding that since the appointments have not been made in terms of th th the guidelines dated 14  March, 2012 followed by 18  March 2013 and the appointments made by the Director not being approved, no error was committed in the procedure been followed to withdraw the benefits extended to the respondent teachers.  12. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   this   fact   has   been completely  overlooked by  the  High Court that the  appointments were made in the AGP Rs.8000, after the recommendations made by   the   selection   committee   been   approved   by   the   Board   of th Governors,   in   terms   of   the   guidelines   dated   14   March,   2012 th followed   by   18   March   2013   that   indeed   includes   further appointments   to   AGP   Rs.9000   and   re­designation   as   Associate Professor and thus, the finding which has been recorded relying 9 st upon the MHRD circular dated 31   December, 2008 in upholding the   order   of   AGP   Rs.9000   and   re­designation   to   the   post   of Associate Professor is not sustainable in law. 13. Learned counsel further submits that after the Act, 2007 came into force, the first statute was notified in exercise of its power under sub­section (1) of Section 26 of the Act, 2007 with the prior rd approval of the visitor of NITs by notification dated 23  April, 2009. Clause 23 of the statute 2009 provides for making appointment to the post of teachers by direct recruitment/promotion pursuant to the constitution of selection committee.  Although, the notification and other terms and conditions of appointment could not be laid down by that time and it was notified in the year 2017, thus, in the given  circumstances,   by   virtue   of   Section   5(d)  of   the   Act  2007, laying   down   the   conditions   of   eligibility   for   appointment,   the guidelines   issued   by   the   MHRD     have   a   binding   force   and  the finding recorded by the High Court holding that MHRD is not an authority competent to issue guidelines after the Act, 2007 came into   force,   is   not   sustainable   particularly,   in   the   given circumstances   when   the   respondent   teachers   got   AGP   Rs.8000 10 th pursuant to the very guidelines of MHRD dated 14   March, 2012 th followed with 18  March, 2013. 14. Thus, the respondent teachers, at least could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate, at the same time, while availing the th AGP Rs.8000 under the MHRD guidelines dated 14  March, 2012 th followed with 18  March, 2013, it is not open to canvass that the very   guidelines   will   not   apply   for   further   AGP   Rs.9000   and   re­ designation as Associate Professor and this has been completely overlooked by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and needs to be interfered with by this Court. 15. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that once their merit has been assessed by the committee and each of them has gone through the process of selection and interview under the Career Advancement Scheme as per the norms fixed for Centrally Funded Technical Institutions and corresponding AGP Rs.8000 has been th th granted   to   them   by   orders   dated   25   June,   2013   and   12 November, 2013 respectively, each of them became entitled for AGP Rs.9000 and for re­designation to the post of Associate Professor on 11 completion   of   three   years’   service   in   the   grade   of   Assistant Professors/   Lecturers(Sel.   Grade)   in   terms   of   MHRD   Guidelines st dated 31   December, 2008 and para 2(x) in particular, and the Director, being the competent authority at the given point of time, and each of them had indisputedly completed three years’ in the AGP Rs.8000 was entitled for the higher pay band of Rs. 37400­ 67000   with   AGP   Rs.9000   and   consequent   re­designation   as Associate Professor and this what the High Court has upheld in the impugned judgment and the finding being in conformity with the st MHRD   guidelines   dated   31   December   2008,   needs   no   further interference by this Court. 16. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that,   for   the   first   time, st through an amendment to the statute under clause 23(5)(a) on 21 July, 2017, schedule ‘E’ had been appended providing qualifications and other terms and conditions for academic staff of NITs, thus, all actions prior thereto are to be governed in terms of the guidelines issued by the MHRD applicable at the given point of time, they are entitled to protect their re­designation of Associate Professor which they are enjoying for sufficient long time and became due for further 12 promotion to the post of Professor under the guidelines which have been introduced by an amendment to the statute by notification st dated 21  July 2017, at least at this point of time, this Court may protect not only their service conditions but the appellants may be directed to further consider their promotion to the post of Professor st in terms of the amended statute dated 21  July 2017. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 18. That prior to the appellant institution became NIT, it was a REC and at that time, the guidelines for CAS were prescribed by the All India Council of Technical Education(AICTE).  Consequent upon conversion into NIT with deemed status and taken over as fully funded institution under the Central Government vide notification th dated 14  May 2003, specific guidelines were formulated by MHRD for CAS for faculty members of NITs wherein it was decided with the approval   of   the   competent   authority   to   implement   Career Advancement Scheme(CAS) in NITs for which the composition of the Selection Committee had been revised and after approval of the recommendations   of   the   Selection   Committee   by   the   Board   of 13 Governors(BOGs)   of   the   NIT   concerned   by   Office   Memorandum th dated 15  September 2003, prescribed the service conditions of the employees of the then RECs upon conversion as NITs with deemed th university status by later notification dated 9  November 2003. 19. At   this   point   of   time,   it   will   be   appropriate   to   clarify   that th MHRD, on the recommendations of the 6  Central Pay Commission, introduced schemes for revision of pay structure and re­designation of   teachers   and   equivalent   cadres   in   universities   and   colleges following   the   revision   of   pay   scales   of   Central   Government st employees vide its directive dated 31  December, 2008 but that is not applicable to the NITs and for NITs, separate directives were th issued   by   the   MHRD   on   18   August,   2009   addressed   to   all Centrally Funded Technical Institutions and also to the IITs and the scheme provides for revision of pay structure and re­designation of th teachers under 6   Central Pay Commission to grant accelerated promotional benefits of the scheme under para (2), which laid down the  conditions   of   eligibility   for   revision   to   AGP   Rs.6000   to  AGP Rs.7000; AGP Rs.7000 to AGP Rs.8000 and AGP Rs.8000 to AGP Rs.9000 and also re­designation as Associate Professor.  The extract 14 th of   MHRD   guidelines   dated   18   August,   2009   relevant   for   the purpose is reproduced as under:­  F. No. F.23—1/ 2008­TS.11 Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development        Department of Higher Education Technical Section­11 Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi th Dated, the 18  August, 2009 To The Director All Centrally Funded Technical Institutions Subject:   Revision   of   pay   of   teaching   and   other   Staff   in Centrally Funded Technical Institutions (CFTIs) following the pay revision of the Central Government employees on the th th recommendation   of   the   6   Central   Pay   Commission   (6 CPC). Sir, I   am   directed   to   say   that   the   Government   of   India   have decided,   after   taking   into   consideration   the   recommendations made by the Govardhan Mehta Committee, to revise the pay of teaching and other staff of Centrally Funded Technical Institutions following the pay revision of the Central Government employees on th the recommendation of 6  CPC.  The revised pay and other service conditions   as   approved   by   the   Government   of   India   for   the teaching and other staff in CFTIs are as under:­ 1… 2.For Other Centrally Funded Technical Institutions The   pay   structure   and   designations   for   all   other Centrally Funded Technical Institutions will generally be the same as per the scheme of revision of pay of teachers, etc. in 15 Universities, etc. as notified by the Ministry of HRD vide letter st No.   1­32/2006­U.II/UI(i)   dated   31   December,   2008   and clarification issued thereon from time to time.   However, in the   case   of   National   Institutes   of   Technology(NITs),   Indian School   of   Mines   University(ISMU),   Indian   Institutes   of Information   Technology(IIITs)   and   Schools   of   Planning   & Architecture(SPAs),   the   following   accelerated   promotional benefits will be given while maintaining the UGC pay structure ; and designations (a) Seven   non­compounded   advance   increments   shall   be admissible   at   the   entry   level   of   recruitment   as   Assistant Professor to persons possessing the degree of Ph.D awarded in the relevant discipline. (b) (i)An Assistant Professor possessing the degree of Ph.D in the relevant discipline and with regular service of 3 years’ at AGP of Rs. 6000/p.m. shall be eligible for moving to AGP of Rs. 7000/­ p.m. (ii) An Assistant Professor possessing the degree of Ph.D in the relevant discipline and with regular service of 3 years’ at AGP of Rs.   7000/­   p.m.   shall   be   eligible   for   moving   to   AGP   of   Rs. 8000/­ p.m. (iii)  An Assistant Professor possessing the degree of Ph.D in the relevant discipline and with regular service of 3 years’ at AGP of Rs. 8000/­ p.m. shall be eligible for moving to AGP   of   Rs.9000/­   p.m.   and   re­designated   as   Associate Professor. (c) Associate Professor completing 4 years’ of regular service in the AGP of Rs. 9000/­ and possessing a Ph.D degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the UGC and by the university, if any.   No teacher   other   than   those   with   a   Ph.D   shall   be   promoted, appointed or designated as Professor.   The Pay Band for the post   of   Professors   shall   be   Rs.   37400­67000   with   AGP   of Rs.10000/­ p.m. (d) Up to a maximum of 20% of the sanctioned post of Porfessors shall be placed in PB­4 in the AGP of Rs.12000/­ p.m. after 16 regular   service   of   6   years’   as   Professor   in   the   AGP   of   Rs. 10000/­ and the minimum pay in the Pay Band will be fixed at Rs. 48000/­ p.m.   Other eligibility conditions will be as laid down by the UGC. (e) All promotions will be based on performance evaluation and subject to fulfilment of other conditions laid down by MHRD st letter No. 1­32/2006­U.II/U.I(i) dated 31  December, 2008. ….” 20. To overcome the difficulties being faced on implementation of the   revision   of   pay   structure   of   teachers   in   Centrally   Funded th Technical Institutions dated 18  August 2009, necessary guidelines th were   issued   by   the   MHRD   dated   14   March,   2012   in   which   a clarification was made that the guidelines provided by AICTE and UGC are not applicable to NITs with a further specification that CAS in NITs will be governed by guidelines and regulations defined by MHRD and   the   council  for  NITs.    The   extract  of   the   guidelines th issued by MHRD dated 14  March, 2012 is reproduced below:­ “No. F.33—7/ 2011­TS.III Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi th Dated, the 14  March, 2012 To The Directors 17 Of all the National Institutes of Technology(NITs) Subject: Promotion of faculty members of NITs under the Career   Advancement   Scheme   (CAS)­   Issue   of   necessary guidelines thereof­regarding. Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to the various communications issued by this Ministry on the rules and regulations for promotion under Career   Advancement   Scheme   (CAS)  for   faculty   members   of   the National Institutes of Technology (NITs).  The Ministry has received a number of representations from the faculty members of the NITs on the implementation of CAS.  The issue had also been discussed in meetings of the Board of Governors (BOGs) of NITs, wherein concerns have been expressed. 2. In   order   to   resolve   the   issue,   a   Committee   (under   the Chairmanship of Prof. Sunil Kr. Sarangi, Director, NIT­Rourkela) was   constituted   for   removal   of   pay   anomalies.     The   report submitted by this Committee was examined in the Ministry.  It was felt that instant issue was intricately linked with the Recruitment Rules for faculty posts. 3. In   order   to   approach   the   instant   issue   from   a   holistic prospective and in the back­drop of a need for Recruitment Rules, it was considered necessary to examine these two issues afresh. Accordingly,   a   Special   Committee   was   set   up   under   the Chairmanship of Prof. Sarangi, Director, NIT­Rourkela vide this Ministry’s   Order   F.No.   24­1/2010­TS.III   dated   27.07.2011   and 23.08.2011.  The Sarangi Committee after detailed examination of the aforesaid issues submitted its report to Standing Committee of the Council of NITs in its meeting held on 15.11.2011 under the rd Chairmanship of Dr. RA Mashelkar.  The Council of NITs in its 3 meeting   held   on   18.11.2011   resolved   to   accept   the recommendations of the Sarangi Committee for implementation of CAS & Recruitment Rules of faculty in NITs, as modified by the Standing Committee. 4. Subsequent   to   the   resolution   of   the   NIT   Council, representations have been received in the Ministry from several NITs   regarding   the   decisions   taken   for   removal   of   anomalies, faculty   promotions,   condition   of   service,   etc.     These representations   have   since   been   examined   in   the   Ministry   in 18 consultation with certain Chairpersons of the BOGs and Directors of NITs.  After due deliberations, the following general and specific guidelines are prescribed: (a) career Advancement Scheme(CAS) is an integral part of a rigid staff structure where the number of posts at any given level is limited.     Such   a   scheme   provides   an  avenue   through   which   a qualified employee climbs to the higher rung of the career ladder, even if there is no vacancy.  It, however, will not be treated as mere formality as the purpose of the scheme was for development of merit and not eligibility based promotions. (b) For a faculty member to gain advancement under CAS, he or she must satisfy the approved criteria under three broad heads: (i) a critical number of years in the lower level or designation and/or AGP,   (ii)   cumulative   academic   performance   during   the   service period   at   the   current   level   in   terms   of   teaching   and   research output   as   well   as   sharing   institutional   responsibility,   and   (iii) proficiency and knowledge in one’s chosen field of research and teaching Superior record in all these three fronts qualifies a faculty member for advancement to a higher level. (c ) CAS   has   been   in   operation   in   institutions   under guidelines provided by AICTE and UGC.   It is clarified that those norms and procedures are not applicable to NITs.  CAS in NITs will be governed by guidelines and regulations defined by the Ministry of HRD and the Council of NITs. (d).. (e).. (f) All recommendations of the Selection Committee shall take effect only from the date of approval of the recommendations by the Board or any later date as decided by the Board.  There shall be   no  retrospective   implementation   of   recommendations   in   any case (either financial or notional). (g) The constitution of the Selection Committee, the procedure and criteria of selection shall be same for internal and external candidates.  There shall not be a separate or special interview for CAS   selection;   interviews   should   be   conducted   along   with candidates for direct recruitment against vacancies, if any. 19 (h).. (i)… (j)… (k) Any promotion or enhancement of Pay Band or Grade Pay,   already   implemented   by   the   institute   should   be   got reviewed/examined   by   the   Board   by   a   duly   constituted selection committee immediately.   Any increment paid over the   beginning   of   the   scale   of   Associate   Professor   to   those Assistant Professors who did not complete 3 years, is to be recovered from future pay. th (l) The   orders   issued   by   the   Ministry   following   the   6 Central Pay Commission provides minimum number of years of service to go to higher AGP or a higher designation, e.g. 3 years from AGP Rs. 6000/­ to Rs. 7000/­ or from AGP Rs. 7,000/­ to AGP Rs. 8,000/­ etc.  These are to be implemented only through the formal selection process.  A formal Selection Committee (as per the NIT Act, 2007 and the statutes of NITs) must   examine   the   candidature   and   ensure   that   an enhancement is recommended on the strength of academic contribution expected of a faculty member of an institution of National Importance. (m)… (n) The eligibility criteria(number of years in lower AGP) should be seen as necessary but not sufficient condition for upgradation of AGP or change of designation.   Any upgradation can be done only   on   recommendation   of   a   duly   constituted   Selections Committee   after   formal   interview.     The   process   for   AGP upgradation should be as serious and dignified as that for change of   designation.     A   candidate   must   convince   the   Selection Committee that he or she engaged in scholastic pursuits (teaching, research and management) to deserve an upgradation after his/her last advancement. (o)… (p)… 20 (q) All   Institutes   shall   strive   to   conduct   annual   selection processes regularly in case of Institutes that have not conducted CAS interviews for 3 years or more.  Selection Committees may, as a onetime measure, examine scholastic contribution of internal candidates made after the last interview and recommend a salary and   AGP   they   would   have   earned   now,   had   the   Selection Committee met at the appropriate time. (r )… (s)….” (emphasis supplied) 21. It will be relevant to note that eligibility has been prescribed th under the relevant directives issued by MHRD dated 18   August, th 2009 followed by 14   March, 2012 with a clear stipulation that th financial upgradation in terms of 6  Central Pay Commission shall be extended co­terminus to the teacher, after going through the formal selection process, in terms of the formation of the selection committee provided under the Act, 2007 and the statutes of NITs to examine   the   candidature   and   ensure   overall   suitability   of   the teacher   on   fulfilment   of   the   relevant   conditions   for   grant   of upgradation of pay/higher AGP/redesignation, as the case may be. 22. It is not disputed that each of the respondent teachers was granted financial benefit of the AGP Rs.8000 in terms of MHRD th th guidelines dated 14   March, 2012 followed by 18   March, 2013 based   on   the   recommendations   of   the   selection   committee 21 constituted   followed   with   interview   and   approval   of   Board   of Governors to the post of Lecturer(Selection Grade) vide Office order th th dated 25  June, 2013 and 12  November, 2013 in the pay scale of th Rs. 12000­18300(corresponding to AGP Rs.8000 in 6  Central Pay Commission). 23. But while placing in the higher pay band of Rs. 37400­67000 with AGP Rs.9000 and re­designation as Associate Professor, no procedure   was   followed,   neither   selection   committee   was constituted nor their suitability was adjudged and also there is no approval of the Board of Governors which is the requirement of law under the Act 2007. 24. The Director who is not even the authority competent under the provisions of the Act, 2007 straightaway, on its own discretion, without following the procedure prescribed by law, passed orders in favour of each of the respondent teachers on mere completion of three years’ service in the AGP Rs.8000 and placed them in the higher  pay  band   of   Rs.37400­67000   with  AGP  Rs.9000  and re­ designation of Associate Professor.  One of the specimens (copy of the   order   passed   by   the   Director),   has   been   reproduced 22 hereinabove, which in itself, depicts that the Director, who is not the authority competent under the Act, 2007 passed orders without due   compliance   of   the   procedure   prescribed   under   the   Office th Memorandum dated 14  March, 2012 and that was the reason for which   MHRD   declined   to   approve   such   appointments   by   its th communication dated 12  February 2018. rd 25. The statute was later enacted vide notification dated 23  April, 2009 in exercise of powers under sub­section (1) of Section 26 of the Act 2007.  Under Section 13(1)(d), the Board is the appointing authority for the academic staff in the post of Lecturer or above.  At the same time, the Central Government, with the prior approval of the visitor, in exercise of power under sub­section (1) of Section 26 of the Act 2007, framed the first statute for NITs and Director, as an Officer of the Institute, has been empowered under clause 17 of the statute to employ teaching supporting staff and discharge all other administrative functions delegated by the authority. 26. Indisputedly, under the present scheme of the Act 2007, the rd first statute came to be introduced by notification dated 23  April, 2009 followed by later amendments made vide notification dated 23 st 21   July, 2017.   The power for appointment of teacher is vested only   with   the   Board   of   Governors   obviously   on   the recommendations made by the selection committee.  In the present scheme of the Act, 2007 of which a reference has been made, the orders passed by the Director of placing the higher pay band of Rs. 37400­67000   with   AGP   Rs.9000   and   re­designated   as   Associate Professor to each of the respondent teachers cannot be said to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed for CAS in terms of the th th guidelines issued by MHRD dated 14  March, 2012 and 18  March, 2013 having not been followed by the Officer of the institution, i.e. Director, in passing orders which were impugned before the High Court that indeed cannot be approved by this Court. 27. The Division Bench of the High Court has proceeded on the premise that after the Act, 2007 has come into force, MHRD is not competent to issue circulars/guidelines of which a reference has th th been made dated 14  March, 2012 and 18  March 2013, which is completely misplaced for the reason that after the Act, 2007 came into force, the appellant­institution was taken over by the Central Government   and   being   fully   funded   institution   by   the   Central 24 Government, the CAS was introduced by MHRD only for accelerated promotion   and   was   not   in   contradistinction   to   the   scheme   for appointment available to the teachers under the provisions of the Act 2007.  At the same time, the respondent teachers were granted the benefit of AGP Rs.8000 under the same guidelines issued by the th th MHRD dated 14   March, 2012 and 18   March, 2013 that too on the   recommendations   of   the   selection   committee   and   with   the approval of the Board of Governors of NIT, Hamirpur, in the given facts  and   circumstances,   to   hold   that   the   benefits   once   availed th th under the guidelines dated 14  March, 2012 and 18  March, 2013 by the respondent teachers while seeking revision of AGP Rs.8000, the very scheme will not be applicable while considering for AGP Rs.9000 and for re­designation as Associate Professor is otherwise not sustainable in law. 28. The   Division   Bench   has   further   committed   an   error   in recording a finding that since the statute pursuant to which the eligibility   conditions   for   appointment   have   been   introduced   by st notification dated 21   July, 2017 is prospective in character and earlier   appointments   made   thereto   have   to   be   in   terms   of   the 25 st guidelines   issued   by   MHRD   dated   31   December   2008   for   the st reason   that   the   guidelines   issued   by   the   MHRD   dated   31 December, 2008 are not applicable so far as the NITs are concerned and this fact was clarified by the MHRD in its later guidelines dated th th 18  August, 2009 followed by 14   March, 2012 and this fact has been completely overlooked by the Division Bench while placing st reliance on the guidelines dated 31  December, 2008. 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   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, 2007 st and   after   the   amendment   notification   dated   21   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 conditions of appointment of academic staff to be made through open advertisement on the recommendations of the 26 selection   committee   until   exempted   under   the   scheme   of   these rules. 30. To clarify it further, CAS scheme by its very nomenclature called  Career   Advancement   Scheme   introduced   for   teachers  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 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 st notification dated 21  July 2017. 31. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to observe that since the respondent teachers are working in the AGP Rs.9000 pursuant to the orders though may not be legally sustainable but it is not the case of the appellants that they are not eligible for AGP Rs.9000 and for re­designation as Associate Professor.  In the given facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to observe that let the respondent teachers may continue for the time being and the 27 appellants   may   initiate   the   process   to   consider   the   respondent teachers for pay band of Rs. 37400­67000 with AGP Rs.9000 and for re­designation as Associate Professor in terms of the guidelines th th dated 14  March, 2012 and 18  March 2013.  Such exercise may be undertaken within a period of four months and further course of action   may   be   taken   in   terms   of   the   recommendations   of   the selection   committee   and   if   they   are   found   suitable,   benefits   be granted from the date of their suitability being adjudged and any of the respondent teachers, if aggrieved by the recommendations made by the selection committee/approval by the BOG, will be at liberty to avail such remedy which the law permits. 32. The appeals accordingly succeed and are hereby allowed with the above observations and the judgment passed by the Division st Bench dated 31  July, 2018 is hereby set aside.  No costs. 33. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.         ………………………J.  (AJAY RASTOGI) ………………………J. 28  (ABHAY S. OKA) NEW DELHI MARCH 30, 2022 29