Delhi High Court
University Of Delhi vs Dr Kiran Gupta & Ors. on 9 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.04.2025
+ LPA 821/2023
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Mohinder J.S. Rupal,
Mr.Hardik Rupal and
Ms.Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs.
versus
DR KIRAN GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Shashank Shekhar,
Mr.Nishank Tripathi and
Mr.Ratnesh Kumar, Advs.
Mr.Parmanand Gaur, Standing
Counsel with Ms.Megha Gaur
and Mr.Vibhav Mishra, Advs.
for R-2/UGC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of 120 days' delay in
filing the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of.
LPA 821/2023 & CM APPL. 64986/2023, CM APPL. 15803/2025
4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the
Judgment dated 08.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.(C) 10564/2019, titled Dr. Kiran Gupta v. The
University of Delhi & Ors., and the Order dated 25.09.2023 passed in
Review Petition No.88/2021 in the above Writ Petition.
Brief facts:
5. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that
the respondent no.1 was promoted to the post of Reader in the Faculty
of Law, University of Delhi, vide Order dated 19.02.2000, with effect
from 27.07.1998. The said post was later re-designated as Associate
Professor on the implementation of the 6th CPC.
6. The respondent no.1 completed the requisite 8 years of service
as Reader required for the promotion to the post of Professor under the
Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)-1998 / Merit Promotion Scheme-
1998, on 27.07.2006.
7. She approached the learned Single Judge in form of the above
Writ Petition complaining therein that while the Sub-Committee
appointed to consider the case of her promotion from Associate
Professor (Stage-4) to Professor (Stage 5), in its Minutes of Meeting
dated 05.07.2017, had found her to be eligible for the said promotion
with effect from 08.05.2009, the appellant, vide a Notification dated
04.07.2019, granted such promotion to the respondent no.1 as
Professor, Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law with effect from 25.06.2019.
8. The learned Single Judge, by its Impugned Judgment dated
08.03.2021, by placing reliance on Clause 6.3.12 of the Career
Advancement Scheme-2010 (in short, 'CAS-2010'), held that as the
respondent no.1 was eligible for promotion with effect from
08.05.2009, in terms of the above Clause, she should be granted
promotion with effect from the said date. In reaching the said
conclusion, the learned Single Judge observed that there is no dispute
that the respondent no.1 was assessed and found eligible for the first
time in the impugned selection process and, therefore, in terms of
Clause 6.3.12 (a), her promotion would relate back to the date of the
minimum period of eligibility.
9. The appellant then filed a Review Petition, being Review
Petition No.88/2021, inter alia, alleging therein the following facts:
On September 25, 2008, the writ
petitioner applied for the post of Professor
under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)-
1998, as per applicable Rules. Her case was
not considered for the reason that some of her
publications were editorials and not research
works required as per the requisite promotion
Scheme.
On December 17/18, 2008, the
petitioner was informed of the non-
consideration of her application for
promotion.
On April 10, 2012, the petitioner again
applied for promotion to the post of Professor
under CAS-1998 with date of eligibility being
July 27, 2007. The case of the petitioner was
forwarded for evaluation by three experts. It is
submitted that the external experts reviewed
the publications in terms of their content to
ascertain the suitability of the candidate for
being considered for promotion. Only on
receipt of three positive reports from the
Experts, would the candidate be eligible to
appear for interview before the Selection
Committee for promotion. In case, one of the
experts gives a negative report, the case along
with the publications is forwarded to a fourth
expert. If the fourth expert gives a positive
report, the candidate becomes eligible for
appearing before the Selection Committee.
However, if the fourth report is also negative,
the case of the candidate is not considered and
is advised to resubmit his/her work after one
year. The reports of all the experts in case of
the petitioner were in the negative. Her work
was 'forwarded to a fourth expert, who also
gave a negative report.
On December 27, 2013, the petitioner
again applied for promotion to the post of
Professor under CAS-1998 with date of
eligibility July 27, 2008. The petitioner was
again, informed by letter dated June 17, 2014,
reiterating the letter dated November 14, 2013
to re-submit the work after one year, therefore,
the application was also returned.
On May 29, 2017, the petitioner applied
for promotion to the post of Professor with
date of eligibility as August 27, 2009 under
CAS-2010."
In the above facts, the petitioner was
promoted w.e.f 25.06.2019 by the Executive
Council on the basis of the recommendation
made by the Selection Committee after due
assessment as per UGC Regulations 2010.
10. The appellant contended that as the case of the respondent no.1
had been earlier rejected for promotion to the post of Professor (Stage
5), in terms of Clause 6.3.12 (c) of the CAS-2010, she would gain her
seniority only from the date she has been declared successful for the
said post.
11. The Review Petition, however, was rejected by the learned
Single Judge, vide Impugned Judgment dated 25.09.2023, by
observing as under:
"23. The letter reveals she has stated her
eligibility as May 8, 2009 and not August 27,
2009 as stated by the University. Having said
that, it appears that the minutes of the
Selection Committee wherein, she has been
recommended for promotion prospectively,
i.e., 2019 was pursuant to the letter dated May
29, 2017. It is not known why the Selection
Committee has recommended her case
prospectively. No reasons are forthcoming for
denying her promotion from 2009. The effect
of promotion being given prospectively is that
the petitioner is denied promotion to the post
of Professor between the years 2009-2018,
which cannot be the position under Service
Rules as she is required to be considered the
next year following the year she was found
unfit. She having been considered in 2008 and
not found fit, she is required to be considered
for 2009. The conclusion of the Selection
Committee to give promotion from June 25,
2019 is very harsh effectively denying her the
promotion for almost ten years. In that sense,
this Court has rightly set aside the
proceedings of the Selection
Committee/Executive Council. It follows, the
recommendation made by the Selection
Committee of promotion must relate back from
May 8, 2009."
Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant:
12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in passing the
Impugned Judgment dated 25.09.2023, the learned Single Judge has
committed a factual error, inasmuch as the Court has considered the
rejection of the application of the respondent no.l for promotion to the
post of Professor only in the years of 2006, 2007 and 2008 and not the
subsequent rejection in the years 2012 and 2013, which were
specifically pleaded by the appellant in the Review Petition.
13. He submits that in terms of Clause 6.3.12 (c) of the CAS-2010,
in case a candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but
succeeds in the eventual assessment, his/her promotion will be
deemed to be only from the later date of successful assessment. He
submits that the respondent no.1, therefore, was rightly granted
promotion to the post of Professor with effect from her being
successful pursuant to her application dated 29.05.2017 by the
Selection Committee on 25.06.2019.
Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the respondents:
14. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the earlier assessments of the respondent
no.1, in the year 2008, was under the CAS-1998. He submits that the
same would not be relevant as far as the consideration of the case of
the respondent no.1 for promotion under CAS-2010 is concerned and,
therefore, for the first time the respondent no.1 was assessed under
CAS-2010 only pursuant to her application dated 29.05.2017.
15. Referring to the Minutes of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee
dated 05.07.2017, he submits that in the said Minutes, the appellant
itself had admitted that the assessment period for the promotion was
from 08.05.2006 to 07.05.2009, and the date of the eligibility of the
respondent no.1 was from 08.05.2009. Placing reliance on Clause
6.2.13 (a) of the CAS-2010, he submits that, therefore, the date of
promotion of the respondent no.1 has to relate back to the date of her
eligibility, and no fault can be found in the Impugned Judgments
passed by the learned Single Judge.
Analysis and findings:
16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
17. Clause 6.3.12 of the CAS-2010 reads as under:
"6.3.12.(a) If a candidate applies for
promotion on completion of the minimum
eligibility period and is successful, the date of
promotion will be from that of · minimum
period of eligibility.
(b) If, however, the candidates find that he/
she fulfills the eligibility conditions at a later
date and applies on that date and is successful,
his/ her promotion will be effected from that
date of application fulfilling the criteria.
(c) If the candidate does not succeed in the
first assessment, but succeeds in the eventual
assessment, his/her promotion will be deemed
to be from the later date of successful
assessment."
18. From a reading of the above, it would be apparent that if the
candidate applies for promotion on completion of the minimum
eligibility period, and is successful, the date of promotion will be
taken from that of the minimum period of eligibility, that is, when for
the first time the candidate became eligible for the promotion.
However, if the candidate finds that he/she fulfils the eligibility
condition at a later date, and applies on that date and is successful,
his/her promotion will be effected from the date of the application
fulfilling the criteria. Clause (c) of Clause 6.3.12 provides that if the
candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but succeeds in the
eventual assessment, his/her promotion will be deemed to be from the
later date of successful assessment.
19. In the present case, it is the case of the respondent no.1 that she
became eligible for promotion on 08.05.2009. She had duly applied
for promotion on 10.04.2012 on her becoming eligible for the same.
The appellant, as is being narrated hereinabove, claimed that the said
application was forwarded for evaluation by three experts who
reviewed her publications in terms of the content to ascertain her
suitability for being considered for promotion. The reports of all the
experts were in the negative as far as the respondent no.1 was
concerned. Her work was still forwarded to the fourth expert, who also
gave a negative report. Accordingly, the case of the respondent no.1
was not considered and, vide letter dated 14.11.2013, she was advised
to resubmit her work after one year.
20. The respondent no.1 then again applied on 27.12.2013, with her
date of eligibility as 27.07.2008. She was informed by a Letter dated
17.06.2014, reiterating the Letter dated 14.11.2013 which had rejected
her application dated 10.04.2012, that she needs to re-submit the work
after one year.
21. She eventually applied for promotion to the post of Professor on
29.05.2017, claiming her eligibility from 27.08.2009. It is on this
application that she was found eligible for promotion.
22. The respondent no.1 having not succeeded in her assessment in
the years 2012 and 2013, therefore, did not fall in sub-clause (a) of
Clause 6.3.12 of the CAS-2010, but would fall in Clause (c) thereof.
She, therefore, can claim promotion only from the date that she
succeeded in her eventual assessment for promotion.
23. Though by the Letter dated 17.06.2014 she had been informed
that she can re-submit the work after one year, she thereafter applied
only on 29.05.2017, that is, after a period of almost 3 years. She,
therefore, cannot even claim retrospective promotion relying upon
Clause (b) of Clause 6.3.12 of the CAS-2010.
24. Though, admittedly, the appellant did not place the above facts
before the learned Single Judge at the time of passing of the Impugned
Judgment dated 08.03.2021, the above facts were placed before the
learned Single Judge in the Review Petition No.88/2021.
25. The learned Single Judge, in Paragraph 21 of the Judgment
dated 25.09.2023, failed to consider the rejection of the application of
the respondent no. 1 in the year 2012 and 2013, but took note only of
the rejection of the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, that is, prior to the date
of her eligibility as claimed in the latest application. It is this factual
error, which made the learned Single Judge again apply Clause 6.3.12
(a) instead of Clause 6.3.12 (c) to the facts of the present case.
26. In view of the above, the Impugned Judgments passed by the
learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The case of the respondent
no.1 fell in Clause 6.3.12 (c) of CAS-2010 and, therefore, her
seniority can relate back only to the date when she was found
successful in the selection process, and no infirmity could have been
found in the Orders passed by the appellant granting her promotion
from such date alone.
27. We, therefore, set aside the Impugned Judgments dated
08.03.2021 and 25.09.2023 as far as the respondent no.1 herein is
concerned.
28. The appeal, alongwith the pending applications, is allowed in
the above terms.
29. There shall be no orders as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 9, 2025/sg/VS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
