Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8031 OF 2022
The Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Rincymol Mathew …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1355 of 2019 by which the Division Bench
of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by the
appellant and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 13265 of 2018 directing
the appellant University to pass appropriate orders counting the past
service of the respondent, who was working as Assistant Professor in
the School of Behavioural Sciences under the University, for the
purposes of computing the benefits due to her in accordance with the
Signature Not Verified
Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “CAS”) under
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2022.11.10
15:09:02 IST
Reason:
the UGC Regulations, the University has preferred the present appeal.
1
2. The respondent herein was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the
School of Medical Education, a self-financing institution under the
appellant University w.e.f. 03.10.1998. The said appointment was
consequent to a selection process that was conducted pursuant to
administrative sanction accorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the
University after obtaining necessary approval from the Director, School
of Medical Education. Initially, she was appointed on probation. Her
probation in the post of Lecturer was thereafter declared on 03.10.1999
and she continued to work as Lecturer till 05.02.2001. That thereafter
she was appointed as Assistant Professor in Nursing for the period
between 06.02.2001 and 11.10.2004 as Associate Professor in Nursing
between 04.10.2004 and 11.04.2005 and as Professor in Nursing
between 12.04.2005 and 20.01.2011. That thereafter w.e.f. 21.01.2011,
she was appointed as Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioural
Sciences, department of the Mahatma Gandhi University.
2.1 The dispute arose with regard to the entitlement of the respondent
to reckon her service in the School of Medical Education for the period
between 03.10.1998 to 21.02.2011 for the purpose of the CAS
envisaged under the UGC Regulations. Her request for extension of
benefit of CAS was considered favourably by the University and by order
dated 06.12.2013, the Syndicate of the University decided to grant her
the benefits of promotion, pay fixation etc. by reckoning her service in
2
the School of Medical Education for the said purpose. That thereafter,
the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of his powers under Section 10(17)
under Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 accepted
the recommendation of the Syndicate Staff Sub-Committee and revoked
the earlier resolution of the Syndicate that had granted the respondent
the benefits of the CAS. The reason stated for revocation of the earlier
Syndicate decision and the denial of the benefits of CAS to the
respondent was that her initial appointment as Lecturer in the School of
Medical Education was not to a post that was duly sanctioned in terms of
the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes.
2.2 The denial / revocation of the earlier Syndicate decision and the
denial of the benefit of CAS were the subject matter of writ petition
before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition by observing that the appointment of the respondent as
Lecturer was after following selection procedure and that she was duly
qualified. The learned Single Judge therefore directed to count the past
services of the respondent in the School of Medical Education in
accordance with the UGC Regulations and to grant the benefit of CAS.
The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench of the
High Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.
Hence the University has preferred the present appeal.
3
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant University
has taken us to Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations. It is submitted
that as per Regulation 10.1, only previous regular service as Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor should be counted for direct recruitment
and promotion under CAS. Therefore, it is submitted that as initially, the
appointment of the respondent as a Lecturer was on temporary post and
was not made after following due procedure as required under the
Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, respondent shall not be
entitled to past services rendered for CAS benefits.
4. While opposing the present appeal, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has taken us to the
appointment orders appointing the respondent initially as a Lecturer and
thereafter as Assistant Professor and thereafter as Associate Professor.
It is submitted that the initial appointment of the respondent – original
writ petitioner was after following due procedure and on probation and
her probation came to be confirmed subsequently thereafter by order
dated 21.10.2000. It is submitted that thereafter by order dated
03.02.2001 on the approval of the Director, School of Medical Education,
respondent – original writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Professor w.e.f. 06.02.2001 in the regular pay-scale. It is submitted that
thereafter her probation as Assistant Professor was confirmed. It is
submitted that thereafter by order dated 12.10.2004, she was promoted
4
to the post of Associate professor in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 14300-
450-19250. It is submitted that in that view of the matter neither the
learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench have committed any error
in directing the University to count the period during which the
respondent worked as Lecturer / Assistant Professor / Associate
Professor for the purpose of granting the benefit under the CAS.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
6. We have considered the initial appointment order of the
respondent as Lecturer. Applications were invited from qualified
candidates and thereafter the respondent was appointed as Lecturer in
the regular pay-scale, initially on probation. The said appointment was
after obtaining appropriate approval from Director, School of Medical
Education. The sanction was accorded by the Vice-Chancellor. That
thereafter by order dated 21.10.2000, her probation was declared w.e.f.
03.10.1999. That thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Professor
and thereafter as Associate Professor continuously in the regular pay-
scale.
6.1 It may be true that at the relevant time when she was appointed as
Lecturer, the post was temporary but as observed hereinabove, on that
5
temporary post, her appointment was sanctioned by the Director as well
as Vice-Chancellor. As observed hereinabove, she has continuously
worked right from 1998 (03.10.1998) till she continued to work as
Associate Professor. At this stage, the Regulation 10.1 with respect to
the grant of CAS is required to be considered, which reads as under:-
"10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or
international as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
or Professor or equivalent in a University, College,
National Laboratories or other scientific/professional
Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC,
ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted for
direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher
as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or
any other nomenclature these posts are described as per
Appendix III-Table No. II provided that:
(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were
not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the
UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor as the case may be.
(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-
revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant
Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader)
and Professor.
(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied
through proper channel only.
(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor should possess the same
minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC
for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor,
Associate Professor and Professor, as the case
may be.
(e) The post was filled in accordance with the
prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the
Regulations of University/State Government/Central
6
Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such
appointments.
(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer
for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy
of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary
service of more than one year duration can be
counted provided that:
(i) the period of service was of more than
one year duration;
(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the
recommendation of duly constituted
Selection Committee; and
(iii) the incumbent was selected to the
permanent post in continuation to the ad
hoc or temporary service, without any
break.
(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the
nature of management of the institution where
previous service was rendered (private/local
body/Government), was considered for counting
past services under this clause.”
6.2 Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole. As per clause
10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of
more than one year duration can be counted provided that : (i) the period
of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the incumbent was
appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection
Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post
in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.
7
6.3 In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked
continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her probation
was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed / promoted as Assistant
Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of Associate
Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, the
respondent shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for the
period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant of the
benefit of CAS.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no error
has been committed by the learned Single Judge and/or the Division
Bench of the High Court in allowing the writ petition / writ appeal and
directing the University to grant the benefit of CAS after counting her
earlier service rendered from 03.10.1998. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this
Court is called for.
Under the circumstances, present appeal fails and deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 10, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]
8