MP HC: Wife’s Refusal to Have Physical Relationship With Husband, Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Ori. HC: Re-Imprisonment of Prematurely Released Convict Can’t be Ordered Unless Release Challenged  ||  Ker. HC: IO Mixes Contraband Found in Separate Packs, Bail Granted to Accused Booked Under NDPS Act  ||  Tripura High Court: Accused Not Entitled to Bail on Mere Filing of Chargesheet  ||  Guj. HC: Student Allowed to Write Exams, Shortage of Attendance Condoned  ||  Ker. HC: AO Can’t Reopen Assessment in Block Period of 6 Years if Absence of Incriminating Materials  ||  Tel. HC: Existence & Validity of Arb. Agreement Must be Determined u/s 11(6) of A&C Act by Court  ||  Tel. HC: While Releasing Amount Under S. 19 of MSME Act, Reasons Must be Assigned by Courts  ||  Ker. HC: Settling Serious Crimes Like Murder, Rape Would Seriously Impact Society  ||  Del. HC: Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal Can be Extended by Court, Even After its Expiry    

Dr. Kiran Gupta vs. The University Of Delhi And Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (08 Mar 2021)

Promotion of candidate takes effect from date of minimum period of eligibility



The prayer of the Petitioners in present petitions is that, they should be promoted to the post of Professor from the post of Associate Professor with effect from their date of eligibility and not from the date of interview i.e. June 25, 2019. A short issue, which arises for consideration is, whether the Petitioners are entitled to promotion from the date of eligibility or from the date of interview. There is no dispute that the case of the Petitioners has to be considered under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS, 2010).

From the perusal of Clause 6.3.12 sub clause (a) of CAS 2010, it is clear that if a candidate applies for promotion on completion of the minimum eligibility period and is successful, the date of promotion will be from the date of minimum period of eligibility. There is no dispute that, the Petitioners have been assessed fit for promotion. If that be so, then the promotion must relate back to the date of minimum period of eligibility.

No doubt, sub clause (c) contemplates that if a candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but succeeds in the later assessment, his/ her promotion will be deemed to be from the later date of successful assessment. This sub clause contemplates that, an assessment can be from a later date than the date of eligibility but surely from the minutes of the Selection Committee, it is clear that there is no conclusion of the Selection Committee that, the Petitioners have not been found fit from the date of their eligibility.

Rather, it is seen that, the Petitioners have been found fit on their first assessment itself for promotion to the post of Professor. If that be so, the Petitioners could not have been denied the promotion from the date of eligibility when the promotion with prospective effect is based on the same material. In fact, by giving the recommendations prospectively, the Selection Committee has deferred the promotion of the Petitioners. The same clearly demonstrates the prejudice that has been caused to the petitioners due to the recommendation of the Selection Committee, promoting the Petitioners prospectively from the date of interview.

The proceedings of the Selection Committee / Executive Council / communication dated July 04, 2019 are set aside to the extent that promotion has been given to the Petitioners to the post of Professor is made prospectively i.e. from June 25, 2019. The said promotion shall relate back to their date of eligibility. Petition allowed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved