Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTUREAND FORESTRY AND A
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJ KUMAR THAKUR
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1990
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 952 1990 SCR (3) 772
1990 SCC Supl. 364 JT 1990 (3) 549
1990 SCALE (2)336
ACT:
Y.S. Parmar University--Ph. D. student appointed As-
sistant Professor--Whether an in-service candidate--Whether
entitled to extension of semesters.
HEADNOTE:
The grant of permission to an in-service teacher of the
appellant University to undertake doctoral programme is
subject to the statutory restrictions; (a), that the course
of study is not available in other institutions and univer-
sities, (b) that the study leave would be admissible for
pursuing approved courses outside the University only, (c)
that the study leave would be granted after the teacher has
completed five years of continuous service in the Universi-
ty, and (d) that the permission to do the same would be
given according to seniority. An Assistant Professor becomes
entitled to the senior scale after completion of eight years
of service. However, the senior scale becomes applicable to
a person getting Ph.D. degree after five years instead of
eight years.
The respondent was a Ph.D. student under the Department
of Agriculture of the appellant-University for a course of
study available in several other institutions, which he was
required to complete in six semesters, with entitlement for
extension by two semesters each on the recommendation of the
Adviser and the Dean respectively. Subsequently, he was
appointed Assistant Professor in the said University. He had
by then completed seven semesters. He was permitted by the
Dean to register for the eighth semester without the knowl-
edge that he had become an employee of the University.
However, thereafter he was refused permission by the Vice-
Chancellor to register for the ninth semester on the ground
that having become an employee of the University he was not
entitled to that benefit.
In the writ petition challenging the said refusal the
High Court by majority found that the respondent was not an
in-service candidate as he had already completed eight
semesters and directed the Vice Chancellor to register him
for the ninth and the tenth semesters.
773
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
HELD: The respondent could not escape from the statutory
restrictions which became applicable to him as soon as he
became an in-service candidate for the remaining part of the
Ph.D. course on his taking up of the appointment in the
University- The benefit claimed if granted to him alone
would result in his getting consequential benefits much
before his several seniors and would seriously prejudice
their claim and amount to an act of discrimination. Such a
course is impermissible. [776D-E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3951 of
1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1990 of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 12 of 1990.
V.A. Bobde, A.K.Sanghi and S. Mudaliar for the Appellants.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mrs. Sadhna Ramachandran and Jagan
Mohan Rao for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VERMA, J- Special leave granted.
Respondent, Raj Kumar Thakur, was a student in the
Postgraduate Doctoral Programme as a Ph.D. scholar with his
subject for doctoral study "Breeding of Honey Bees-A-Mellif-
era for Honey production through Artificial Insemination"
which is a subject under the Department of Agriculture of
Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry and is
a course of study available in several other institutions in
the country. The respondent was registered for this course
in 1985 and was required to complete the same in six semes-
ters with entitlement for extension by two more semesters by
the Dean on the recommendation of the Adviser and for a
further extension of two more semesters by the Vice-Chancel-
lor of the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and
Forestry on the recommendation of the Dean. The respondent
completed seven semesters as a student and registered for
the eighth semester on 24.7.1989 as a student of the Univer-
sity. However, during this period respondent was appointed
as Assistant Scientist in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 vide
letter of appointment dated 26.7.1989. The Dean by order
dated
774
27.7.1989 permitted the respondent to register for the
eighth semester. This permission of the Dean was granted
without the knowledge of the respondent having become an
employee of the University as a result of the appointment
letter dated 26.7.1989. The respondent joined the post of
Assistant Scientist pursuant to this appointment on
29.7.1989. The respondent thereafter applied for a further
extension of his registration for the course for the ninth
semester. The Vice-Chancellor vide his order dated
22.11.1989 refused the permission on the ground that the
respondent having become an employee of the University, was
not entitled to that benefit in accordance with the provi-
sions applicable. The restrictions in regard to an
employee/teacher of the University for the purpose are as
under:
"(a) An employee/teacher of the University is permitted to
undertake doctoral programme only in subjects for which
facilities in other Universities in the country are not
available. Forestry being one such subject in the petitioner
University. The course of study of the respondent viz.
Agriculture, is however, available in numerous other insti-
tutions and Universities in the country.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
(b) An employee/teacher is required to take study leave and
the same is admissible for pursuing approved courses outside
the University only. It is only in cases where facilities
for the course of study which is not available elsewhere in
the country, an in-service teacher is permitted to undertake
the same in the petitioner University.
(c) Study leave is not granted as a matter of fight and can
be granted only after the employee/teacher has completed
five years of continuous service in the University.
(d) Considering the number of employees aspiring to do
doctoral programme the permission to do the same is given
according to seniority."
An employee of the University would be required to
complete the Ph.D. within eight years of recruitment failing
which increments are not admissible till completion of the
course. An employee who is Assistant Professor or holds an
equivalent post, the respondent being in that category,
normally becomes entitled to the senior scale of Rs.3000-
5000 after completion of eight years of service. However, in
case of an employee obtaining the Ph.D. degree the senior
scale be-
775
comes applicable after five years instead of eight years. On
completion of eight years in the senior scale an
employee/teacher is promoted to the next higher rank of
reader. Thus, a person getting a Ph.D. degree gets the
senior scale ,earlier and consequently he is also promoted
earlier to the post of reader. There are 24 other employees
who are senior to the respondent and are awaiting completion
of their five years service for doing the doctoral programme
and there are eight other employees who joined initially
with the Ph.D. degree and are awaiting completion of five
years for getting the senior scale. The consequence of
granting permission to the respondent for registration to
the ninth semester would be to confer on the respondent the
benefit which is not available to an employee of the Univer-
sity because of the aforesaid restrictions and this would
result in giving a benefit to the respondent contrary to the
provisions applicable while denying the same to others who
are senior to the respondent in employment. According to the
appellants this was the reason for refusal by the Vice-
Chancellor of the permission sought by the respondent.
The respondent challenged this refusal of the permission
to him by the Vice-Chancellor by order dated 22.11.89 in the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C.W.P. No. 12 of 1990. By
the impugned judgment dated 10.4.1990, the Full Bench of the
High Court by majority allowed the writ petition and direct-
ed the Vice-Chancellor to register the respondent for the
remaining two semesters, namely, the ninth and the tenth
semesters. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
The grievance of the appellants is that the result of
the impugned majority judgment of the High Court Would be
that though the respondent is an employee/teacher of the
University he would be doing research in a subject in which
otherwise employees of the University are not permitted; the
respondent would get the senior scale earlier and also be
promoted to the post of Reader much before 24 persons senior
to him who are awaiting their turn in the order of seniority
to undertake the doctoral programme after completion of the
requisite five years service which is contrary to the statu-
tory provisions; and the 24 other employees senior to the
respondent would be adversely affected even without being
parties in the writ petition.
The statutory provisions applicable to the case and
their meaning is not in controversy. The only controversy is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
whether the respondent can be treated as an employee or in-
service candidate for the Ph.D. course on these facts so as
to attract the restrictions which are relied on by the
University for refusing the permission for registration to
the
776
ninth and tenth semesters sought by the respondent. The
majority opinion in the impugned judgment takes the view
that the respondent is not an in-service candidate for this
purpose as he has already completed eight semesters and
requires only two or three months to complete the Ph.D.
course. The majority has also been influenced by the fact
that refusal of permission for completing the course at this
stage would be hard on the respondent. The minority view of
Bhawani Singh, J., is that on appointment to a teaching post
in the University, the respondent incurred the disability
and attracted the restrictions which are applicable to all
employees of the University irrespective of the consequence
flowing from it. In our opinion, the minority judgment of
Bhawani Singh, J., on this point and the conclusion reached
by him that the respondent attracted the restrictions at-
taching to all employees of the University on his appoint-
ment as a teacher of the University is the correct view and
the respondent cannot escape from the statutory restrictions
which became applicable to him as soon as he became an in-
service candidate for the remaining part of the Ph.D. course
on his taking up of the appointment in the University. The
further fact that the benefit claimed by the respondent, if
granted, would result in the respondent getting consequen-
tial benefits much before his several seniors as a result of
this permission alone cannot also be overlooked. It is not a
case of merely giving some benefit to the respondent even by
relaxation of some statutory provisions without causing any
prejudice to anyone else but a case where such a benefit
granted to the respondent alone from amongst a large number
of employees of the University would also seriously preju-
dice their claim and amount to an act of discrimination.
Obviously, such a course is impermissible. This is the
consequence of the High Court judgment and, therefore, it
must be set aside.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment dated 10.4.1990 of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh in C.W.P. No. 12 of 1990 is set aside. No costs.
R.S.S. Appeal
allowed.
777