Delay and laches alone cannot defeat a legally sustainable claim for retrospective promotion.

The petitioners were appointed as Associate Professors at Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (“KSDSU”) pursuant to the University’s selection process under Advertisement No. 1 of 2008. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed in Sahitya, and Petitioner No. 2 was appointed in Dharmashastra; both had previously served as Lecturers and their services were subsequently confirmed.

Following recommendations of the University Selection Committee under the Career Advancement Scheme and approval by the Syndicate, both petitioners were promoted as Professors with effect from 4 March 2017.

The petitioners therefore sought retrospective revision of their promotion date from 4 March 2017 to 4 March 2012. KSDSU submitted that the claim should be considered by the competent authority, while also raising delay and laches, since the promotion had been granted in 2017.

Whether the petitioners’ claim for revision of their promotion date to the post of Professor was required to be reconsidered in light of Clause 7(xiv) of the Resolution dated 29 July 2010 and the modified Resolution dated 21 February 2019.

Whether the petitioners’ delay in approaching the Court after their promotion in 2017, by itself, barred consideration of their claim.

Whether the Registrar, KSDSU, should determine the petitioners’ entitlement through a reasoned and speaking order, with consequential benefits if their claim was found legally justified.

The Court applied Clause 7(xiv) of the Resolution contained in Letter No. 15/D 1-01/09 Part-I H.E.-2374 dated 29 July 2010, as subsequently modified by Resolution No. 2460 dated 21 February 2019.

The provision contemplates appointment or nomination to the post of Professor, after completion of three years of service, of a directly appointed Associate Professor possessing a Ph.D. in the relevant subject, subject to fulfilment of the criteria prescribed by the University Grants Commission and the State Government.

The Court also applied the principle that delay and laches do not automatically defeat a claim where an alleged continuing or substantive service entitlement has not been properly considered and the matter requires examination by the competent authority.

No judicial precedent or separate statutory provision was cited in the judgment.

The petitioners’ grievance was founded on a specific Government Resolution which, according to them, had not been considered while determining their promotion to Professor.

Since the record before the Court did not permit a final adjudication of their entitlement, the Court directed the Registrar to reconsider their cases under the applicable Resolutions rather than directly granting retrospective promotion.

The objection of delay was held insufficient, by itself, to defeat the claim because the alleged failure concerned the application of a governing service-resolution to the petitioners’ promotion.

The Registrar was therefore required to assess whether the petitioners satisfied the Ph.D., service-period, UGC, State Government and other applicable criteria and to issue a reasoned decision.

The Court did not itself order retrospective promotion.

It directed that, if the petitioners’ claims were found legally justified under the applicable Resolutions, their promotion dates should be revised accordingly, together with all consequential benefits admissible in law.