CAS promotion cannot be granted without UGC-compliant assessment by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee.

Dr. P. Manju Pushpa was appointed by Bharathiar University on a contractual basis in 2008 and was regularly appointed as Assistant Professor (Physical Education) with effect from 25.08.2014.

She sought the benefit of promotion under the University Grants Commission’s Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), including consequential service benefits, and challenged the University’s rejection of her claim.

The learned Single Judge allowed her writ petition on 19.10.2023 and directed consideration of her promotion/CAS claim retrospectively.

During the pendency of the writ appeal, the University implemented the order under the threat of contempt proceedings, expressly subject to the result of the appeal.

The University challenged the writ order before the Division Bench.

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to retrospective promotion/CAS benefits merely on completion of the prescribed period of service, without prior assessment of her eligibility and performance by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee.

2. Whether her earlier contractual service could be counted for CAS purposes under Clause 10 of the UGC Regulations, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.

3. Whether the University’s implementation of the writ order during the pendency of the appeal, under threat of contempt, created an indefeasible right in favour of the respondent.

Promotion or advancement under the CAS is not a vested or automatic right; it must be determined under the applicable rules and upon satisfaction of the prescribed eligibility and performance requirements.

Clause 10 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018, permits previous ad hoc, temporary or contractual service to be counted for direct recruitment and promotion only where the prescribed conditions are satisfied, including requisite qualifications, appointment through a duly constituted Selection Committee, and payment of gross emoluments not below those of a regularly appointed teacher.

The CAS provisions additionally require completion of the prescribed period of service, fulfilment of orientation/training and publication requirements, satisfactory performance assessment, and recommendation by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee.

The UGC Regulations, 2010, require transparent, objective and performance-based assessment through the prescribed selection procedure and committee mechanism.

Courts cannot assume the role of a Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee or directly grant promotion where the prescribed institutional assessment has not been undertaken.

The Court held that the respondent’s contractual service could not, by itself, confer an automatic entitlement to CAS promotion.

Although Clause 10 of the 2018 UGC Regulations permits qualifying contractual service to be counted, the respondent’s eligibility had to be examined after her regular appointment on 25.08.2014 and in light of all applicable conditions.

The record did not establish that the University had placed her case before the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee or undertaken the requisite assessment of qualifications, service records, performance reports and other CAS criteria.

Consequently, the learned Single Judge erred in directing promotion without the statutory/regulatory evaluation process, since such a direction would improperly substitute judicial determination for the decision of the competent academic authority and could affect the promotional prospects of other teachers.

The implementation of the order during the appeal was only provisional and subject to the appellate result; it therefore created no absolute or vested right.

The University was directed to reconsider Dr. Manju Pushpa’s claim for promotion/CAS strictly in accordance with the UGC Regulations and with reference to her service records.

The Court clarified that her claim was not rejected on merits but had to be decided through the prescribed competent-authority and Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee process.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.