Del. HC: Obtaining of Voice Samples of Accused Must be in Compliance with Telegraph Act  ||  P&H HC: Peaceful Protest is Not a Penal Offence Under Section 188 IPC  ||  All HC: AO Must Consider Form 10 u/s 17 Supplied After Limitation But Before Assessment is Completed  ||  Ker. HC Issues Guidelines on Handling Digital Evidence Containing Sexually Explicit Materials  ||  Del. HC: Cyber Crimes Dissuade Aspirations of Advanced 'Digital Bharat'  ||  Del. HC: Suspension of Entity Can’t be Continued Indefinitely  ||  Del. HC: Woman Can be 'Karta' of HUF  ||  SC: Court Can’t Impose Bail Condition that Husband Must Resume Conjugal Life with Wife  ||  SC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance of Cal. HC Judgment that Adviced Adolescents on Sexual Behavior  ||  JKL HC: Court Can’t be Guided by Personal Law While Deciding Apportionment of Compensation    

Registrar Karnataka University & Anr. vs. Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr. - (Supreme Court) (17 Dec 2020)

Promotion under the scheme is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of incumbent teacher into the University



Present civil appeal is filed by the Karnataka University aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court. By the aforesaid Order, Division Bench of High Court has dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the Appellants herein, and declared that the effective date of “Career Advancement Scheme” (‘CAS’) promotion of the first Respondent-writ Petitioner was 1st January, 2009 and also directed to grant all consequential benefits to him, as flow from such fixation. In fact, the CAS promotion was already given to the first Respondent- writ Petitioner and pay fixation has already been made, but it was from the date of 28th October, 2013.

The first Respondent-writ Petitioner had claimed his promotion under CAS, promulgated by the UGC, to be given effect from 1st January, 2009 instead of 28th October, 2013, from which date, promotion is given to the writ petitioner.

A comprehensive reading of the statute makes it very clear that, for the purpose of granting CAS promotion, the incumbent teacher must have holding a substantive sanctioned post, as much as CAS promotion being a personal promotion to the incumbent teacher and on superannuation of the individual incumbent, the said post shall revert back to its original cadre. It is also clear that, the incumbent teacher must be on the “roll and active services of the University or the College”, on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for selection under CAS Promotion. A harmonious reading of Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute read with the Preamble thereof, makes it clear that the term “College” used in the said statute is referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated College.

The High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect namely, that the first Respondent was not in actual service of the University or of the constituent College, has ordered to extend the benefit from 1st January, 2009, on the ground that, he has completed three years of service, by working as Assistant Professor in Mathematics in UGC pay scale with effect from 1st January, 2006 to 1st January2009. There cannot be any promotion in the University for the period where the writ Petitioner was not in effective service of the University. The University is not expected to order promotion for the period, when he was working in affiliated college.

Further, the High Court has fell in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word “colleges”, by extending to “affiliated college”. Even the Division Bench has also committed the same error by recording a finding that, a magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings University/Colleges, as used in the paragraph/clause 12.7 of the Statute. The University has correctly interpreted the various clauses of the Statute and by giving the benefit of past service, has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry into the service of the University.

The incumbent teacher, who is entitled for promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into the University. Though the earlier service is to be counted for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion, but effective date for all purposes is only from the date of entry of first Respondent into the University service, i.e, 28th October, 2013. The University is not expected to grant promotion, covering the period, anterior to the entry of service of the first Respondent into University. The University has rightly given the benefit of promotion from 28th October, 2013. The Judgment and Order passed by the High Court is quashed. Appeal allowed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved