The Mahatma Gandhi University vs Rincymol Mathew

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8031 OF 2022

The Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Rincymol Mathew …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at

Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1355 of 2019 by which the Division Bench

of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by the

appellant and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 13265 of 2018 directing

the appellant University to pass appropriate orders counting the past

service of the respondent, who was working as Assistant Professor in

the School of Behavioural Sciences under the University, for the

purposes of computing the benefits due to her in accordance with the

Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “CAS”) under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2022.11.10 15:09:02 IST Reason:

the UGC Regulations, the University has preferred the present appeal.

1

2. The respondent herein was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the

School of Medical Education, a self-financing institution under the

appellant University w.e.f. 03.10.1998. The said appointment was

consequent to a selection process that was conducted pursuant to

administrative sanction accorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the

University after obtaining necessary approval from the Director, School

of Medical Education. Initially, she was appointed on probation. Her

probation in the post of Lecturer was thereafter declared on 03.10.1999

and she continued to work as Lecturer till 05.02.2001. That thereafter

she was appointed as Assistant Professor in Nursing for the period

between 06.02.2001 and 11.10.2004 as Associate Professor in Nursing

between 04.10.2004 and 11.04.2005 and as Professor in Nursing

between 12.04.2005 and 20.01.2011. That thereafter w.e.f. 21.01.2011,

she was appointed as Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioural

Sciences, department of the Mahatma Gandhi University.

2.1 The dispute arose with regard to the entitlement of the respondent

to reckon her service in the School of Medical Education for the period

between 03.10.1998 to 21.02.2011 for the purpose of the CAS

envisaged under the UGC Regulations. Her request for extension of

benefit of CAS was considered favourably by the University and by order

dated 06.12.2013, the Syndicate of the University decided to grant her

the benefits of promotion, pay fixation etc. by reckoning her service in

2 the School of Medical Education for the said purpose. That thereafter,

the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of his powers under Section 10(17)

under Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 accepted

the recommendation of the Syndicate Staff Sub-Committee and revoked

the earlier resolution of the Syndicate that had granted the respondent

the benefits of the CAS. The reason stated for revocation of the earlier

Syndicate decision and the denial of the benefits of CAS to the

respondent was that her initial appointment as Lecturer in the School of

Medical Education was not to a post that was duly sanctioned in terms of

the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes.

2.2 The denial / revocation of the earlier Syndicate decision and the

denial of the benefit of CAS were the subject matter of writ petition

before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the

writ petition by observing that the appointment of the respondent as

Lecturer was after following selection procedure and that she was duly

qualified. The learned Single Judge therefore directed to count the past

services of the respondent in the School of Medical Education in

accordance with the UGC Regulations and to grant the benefit of CAS.

The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench of the

High Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.

Hence the University has preferred the present appeal.

3

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant University

has taken us to Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations. It is submitted

that as per Regulation 10.1, only previous regular service as Assistant

Professor, Associate Professor should be counted for direct recruitment

and promotion under CAS. Therefore, it is submitted that as initially, the

appointment of the respondent as a Lecturer was on temporary post and

was not made after following due procedure as required under the

Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, respondent shall not be

entitled to past services rendered for CAS benefits.

4. While opposing the present appeal, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has taken us to the

appointment orders appointing the respondent initially as a Lecturer and

thereafter as Assistant Professor and thereafter as Associate Professor.

It is submitted that the initial appointment of the respondent – original

writ petitioner was after following due procedure and on probation and

her probation came to be confirmed subsequently thereafter by order

dated 21.10.2000. It is submitted that thereafter by order dated

03.02.2001 on the approval of the Director, School of Medical Education,

respondent – original writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Professor w.e.f. 06.02.2001 in the regular pay-scale. It is submitted that

thereafter her probation as Assistant Professor was confirmed. It is

submitted that thereafter by order dated 12.10.2004, she was promoted

4 to the post of Associate professor in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 14300-

450-19250. It is submitted that in that view of the matter neither the

learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench have committed any error

in directing the University to count the period during which the

respondent worked as Lecturer / Assistant Professor / Associate

Professor for the purpose of granting the benefit under the CAS.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

6. We have considered the initial appointment order of the

respondent as Lecturer. Applications were invited from qualified

candidates and thereafter the respondent was appointed as Lecturer in

the regular pay-scale, initially on probation. The said appointment was

after obtaining appropriate approval from Director, School of Medical

Education. The sanction was accorded by the Vice-Chancellor. That

thereafter by order dated 21.10.2000, her probation was declared w.e.f.

03.10.1999. That thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Professor

and thereafter as Associate Professor continuously in the regular pay-

scale.

6.1 It may be true that at the relevant time when she was appointed as

Lecturer, the post was temporary but as observed hereinabove, on that

5 temporary post, her appointment was sanctioned by the Director as well

as Vice-Chancellor. As observed hereinabove, she has continuously

worked right from 1998 (03.10.1998) till she continued to work as

Associate Professor. At this stage, the Regulation 10.1 with respect to

the grant of CAS is required to be considered, which reads as under:-

"10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III-Table No. II provided that:

(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-

revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.

(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.

(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be.

(e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central

6 Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.

(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that:

(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;

(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and

(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.

(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government), was considered for counting past services under this clause.”

6.2 Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole. As per clause

10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of

more than one year duration can be counted provided that : (i) the period

of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the incumbent was

appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection

Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post

in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.

7 6.3 In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked

continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her probation

was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed / promoted as Assistant

Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of Associate

Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, the

respondent shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for the

period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant of the

benefit of CAS.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no error

has been committed by the learned Single Judge and/or the Division

Bench of the High Court in allowing the writ petition / writ appeal and

directing the University to grant the benefit of CAS after counting her

earlier service rendered from 03.10.1998. We are in complete

agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this

Court is called for.

Under the circumstances, present appeal fails and deserves to be

dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. NOVEMBER 10, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

8