All the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in the respective departments in Lucknow University. All of them were allowed Reader's scale w.e.f. 27.7.1998, and were given the designation as Readers w.e.f. 22.10.2001 except petitioner No. 4. He was given Reader's designation on 3.5.2001.
The petitioners were considered for promotion under the 'Career Advancement Scheme' in the month of January/February, 2007. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were not put up before the Executive Committee for four months and thus in terms of Section 31 (8) (aa) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the recommendations were referred to the Chancellor. By his order dated July 3, 2007, the Chancellor did not agree with the recommendations on the ground that on the dates, when the Selection Committees met i.e. 4.1.2007 and 22.2.2007, the Statutes in terms of the 'Career Advancement Scheme' were neither made nor amended and thus the meeting of the Selection Committee could not be held in accordance with the law. The petitioners filed this Writ Petition in which on 25.10.2007 this Court after hearing both the parties passed following orders: "Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Sri Devendra Arora and on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 notice has been accepted by Sri I.B. Singh. The respondents pray for and are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sandeep Dixit, is that the view expressed by the Chancellor and Executive Council on 20th February 2007 for considering the promotion under Career Advancement Scheme on the post of Professor was not valid because the Statute was amended as per the assent given by the Chancellor only on 20th June 2007 and for that mater direction to hold a fresh Selection Committee requires reconsideration by the Chancellor, in view of the fact that the amended Statute namely; 11.24 gives the promotion under Career Advancement Scheme from the date of eligibility of the incumbent 2 or from 27th July 1998 whichever is later, and not from the date of taking over the charge of the higher post, and therefore, even if, the Selection Committee had recommended promotion prior to the assent given by the Chancellor to the proposed amended Statute which was being done in pursuance of the directive issued by the University Grant Commission, no prejudice would be caused to any person and the benefit of the promotion will be given to the petitioner from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date, on which the Statute was amended.
Sri Devendra Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 could not satisfy the Court on the said issue otherwise and about the outcome of the orders passed by the Chancellor which in fact, though means holding of a fresh meeting but again the benefit of the promotion would be given from the date to which the petitioner is entitled under the Act.
We, therefore, provide as an interim measure that the Chancellor may reconsider his direction for holding of fresh Selection Committee in view of the pleadings of the writ petition and also in view of the arguments raised before us which have been referred to above. We expect that a period of four weeks will be sufficient for this purpose for the Chancellor to take a decision. We direct that in the meantime the later portion of the order dated 3.7.2007 in which direction for holding fresh meeting has been given, shall remain in abeyance."
The matter was reconsidered by the Chancellor. By his decision dated 22.1.2008, the Chancellor has reiterated his earlier view and has directed the University to act accordingly.
Learned counsel for petitioners has challenged both the orders of the Chancellor on the grounds, that by Government Order dated 16.1.2007 the amendment to the paragraph14 of the 'Career Advancement Scheme' dated 3.5.2001 (also incorporated as Statute 11.24 of the Statutes of Lucknow University), was approved by the Chancellor on 16.6.2007. The amendment did not make any difference to the eligibility and the right of the eligible candidates to be considered for promotion. The only change brought about by the amendment is that whereas in the unamended para 14 the next higher grade was admissible from the date of eligibility, or 27.7.1998, whichever is later, but the designation (if any) was to be given from the date of taking over charge; the amendment made on the recommendation of the University Grants 3 Commission provides for grant of both the next higher grade as well as designation to be admissible from the date of eligibility or 27.7.1998, whichever is later.
It is submitted that the amendment will not make any difference to the selections made prior to the amendment, under the 'Career Advancement Scheme'. It will only make a difference to the admissibility of designation from the date of eligibility or 27.7.1998, whichever is later. In the case of all the petitioners they will get the promotions from the date of eligibility, as all of them were eligible for promotions.
Shri Alok Mathur appearing for Chancellor would submit that since the amendment was proposed and was under consideration of the Vice Chancellor, the Selection Committee could not be held prior to the consideration of the amendment. He would submit that the amendment may not affect the eligibility of the petitioners, or the proceedings of the Selection Committee but that the resultant benefit could be given only after the amendment was approved by the Chancellor.
Learned counsel appearing for the University has not denied that the amended 'Career Advancement Scheme' was in vogue, prior to the amendment, and that the pendency of the proposal of the amendments and its approval by the Chancellor, will not make any difference to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee.
After hearing learned counsel for parties, we find that the then Chancellor appears to have taken the decision under an impression that prior to the amendment there was no provision for the 'Career Advancement Scheme' and that the Selection Committee could not be convened to make selections and recommendations for appointments. He has not taken into consideration the observations made by the Court in the order dated 25.10.2007 and the 'Career Advancement Scheme' issued on 13.5.2001 w.e.f. 27.7.1998.
It is also not denied by the respondents that the petitioners were eligible to be considered and that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee were valid. The 'Career Advancement Scheme' was in existence since 3.5.2001 w.e.f. 27.7.1998. The pendency of the proposal of the amendment in the scheme could not have taken away the right of the petitioners to be considered by the Selection Committee constituted by the University in accordance with the then existing provisions, when all the petitioners had become eligible to be promoted as Professors under the 'Career Advancement Scheme', on 27.7.2006, and that both the Selection Committees 4 were constituted after the date of their entitlement, i.e. after 27.7.2006. The Universities Grant Commission (UGC) had recommended on 1.12.2006, for amendment in the 'Career Advancement Scheme'. These recommendations of UGC were binding on the Universities and were only formalised by making amendment in the scheme, after approval of the Chancellor on 16.6.2007.
The orders of the Chancellor dated 3.7.2007 and 22.1.2008 are clearly unsustainable. We therefore allow the writ petition and while setting aside the order of the Chancellor dated 22.1.2008, as well as his earlier order dated 3.7.2007, issue a writ of mandamus directing him to consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee, in the matter of promotions of the petitioners afresh in accordance with the observations made in the judgment and the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, as expeditiously as possible.
Dt.4.01.2010 RKP/