University must consider CAS promotion representations in light of eligibility findings and the committee’s recommendation.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Kannada University, sought Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotion. After his appointment as Assistant Professor at Academic Level 10 on 27 March 2018, he applied for promotion to Levels 11 and 12.

He was promoted to Level 11 with effect from 27 March 2022, but sought Level 12 promotion from 27 March 2023 and subsequently claimed eligibility for promotion to Associate Professor at Level 13A.

Following an earlier writ petition, the University constituted a committee to examine his eligibility. The committee recommended promotion, subject to the Registrar’s decision; the Registrar then ordered that the petitioner’s past service be considered for promotion.

The petitioner later made further representations seeking consideration of promotion to Levels 12 and 13A. As no further action was taken, he filed the present petition seeking consideration of those representations.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for CAS promotion from Assistant Professor, Academic Level 11, to Selection Grade, Academic Level 12, with effect from 27 March 2023.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s further claim for promotion to Associate Professor, Academic Level 13A, with the applicable pay scale, in light of his eligibility and the committee’s recommendation.

The petition invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus to require the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representations.

No specific statutory provision, CAS regulation, or judicial precedent was identified or applied in the order.

The operative basis was the University’s counsel’s submission that the representations would be considered in accordance with the petitioner’s eligibility and the committee’s recommendation, provided reasonable time was granted.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner was substantively entitled to either promotion.

The University’s counsel undertook that the representations would be considered by reference to the eligibility criteria and the committee’s recommendation. In view of that submission, the Court considered it appropriate to grant mandamus requiring consideration of the promotion claims, while leaving the eligibility assessment to the respondents.

The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claims for promotion to Academic Level 12 with effect from 27 March 2023 and to Academic Level 13A, with the admissible pay scale, in light of the eligibility enquiry and the committee’s recommendation. Consideration was ordered to be completed as expeditiously as possible and within three months.