Bihar Must Consider Teachers At Two Government Women’s Colleges For UGC Career Promotions: Patna HC Upholds Order

The respondents were Assistant Professors employed in two Government Women’s Colleges in Patna, appointed as Lecturers following a Bihar Public Service Commission advertisement. The State had declared the colleges’ teaching posts ex-cadre and extended UGC pay scales to their teachers. It later adopted the UGC package, including provisions concerning teachers’ service conditions, and implemented revised UGC pay scales for the college teachers.

The respondents sought consideration for promotion under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). The State opposed the claim, contending that Government college teachers were State employees governed by the Bihar Service Code and Rules, and that the university CAS did not apply to them. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the State and the University to consider the respondents’ cases under the CAS. The State appealed.

The State’s decisions of 20 July 2001 and 29 July 2010 adopted the UGC package for relevant Government college teachers, including provisions on pay scales, qualifications and other service conditions.

Clause 7 of Appendix I to the 2001 package sets out the CAS provisions, including eligibility and promotion criteria.

The Court held that, although the CAS did not apply automatically, the State’s adoption of the package for Government colleges encompassed the CAS as part of the adopted service conditions.

In an intra-court appeal, interference is not warranted unless the judgment under appeal is erroneous in law.

The Court found that the State had adopted the UGC package for Government colleges and that its scope included “other service conditions” of college teachers. Since Clause 7 of Appendix I specifically provided for the CAS, the State could not deny the respondents consideration under that scheme merely because they were Government employees.

The Court also agreed with the Single Judge that the earlier decision in LPA No. 211 of 2013 concerned superannuation and did not govern the CAS claim; the respondents’ superannuation age remained 62.

Finding no legal error in the Single Judge’s decision, the Court declined to interfere.

It dismissed the State’s appeal as without merit and affirmed the direction requiring the State and the University to decide the respondents’ promotion claims within five months of receipt or production of the Single Judge’s order.