Himachal Pradesh High Court
Between: vs Himachal Pradesh University on 27 August, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Reportable
Reserved on 19.8.2021
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.
3859 of 2020
Between:
DR. DEVENDERA SHARMA,
SON OF SHRI O.P. SHARMA,
R/O HILARIOUS LODGE, SANGTI,
PO CHAILLY, SUMMER HILL, SHIMLA,
PRESENTLY POSTED AS PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
H.P. UNIVERSITY, SUMMER HILL,
SHIMLA171005.
....PETITIONER
(BY SH. M.L. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY,
SUMMER HILL, SHIMLA171005,
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SH. NEEL KAMAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:24 :::CIS
This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the
Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
.
The petitioner, as, disclosed in Annexure A4,
as, made on 27.1.2016, was promoted to the post of
Professor w.e.f. 4.3.2015. The afore made promotion of
the petitioner to the post of Professor, was made under
r to
the Career Advancement Scheme. However, through an
office order, embodied in Annexure A6, the afore made
promotion, visavis, the petitioner against the post of
Professor hence under the Career Advancement Scheme,
rather became altered from 4.3.2015 to 28.1.2016.
Therefore, the writ petitioner is hence aggrieved from the
afore modification/alteration, of the date of taking into
effect of his promotion to the post of Professor, under the
Career Advancement Scheme, w.e.f. 4.3.2015, as,
embodied in Annexure A4 rather to 28.1.2016, and, as,
becomes embodied in Annexure A6. Consequently, he is
led to approach this Court for the making a mandamus,
upon, the respondent hence for its enforcing the
apposite recitals, visavis, the date of the takings into
effect of his promotion to the post of Professor, and, as,
becomes embodied in Annexure A4.
.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner has contended with much vigor before this
Court, that the meteing of the afore benefit of promotion
to the writ petitioner, is not a strictosensu promotion,
rather it only bestows upon the petitioner, the benefit of
a higher pay band, appertaining to the higher post
concerned.
3. However, the afore made contention before
this Court cannot be accepted, as, a perusal of Clause
6.3.9, carried in UGC Guidelines, and, as, becomes
embodied in Annexure A2, Clause whereof stands
extracted hereinaftaer:
"The incumbent teacher must be on the role
and active service of the Universities/ Colleges
on the date of consideration by the Selection
Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion."
does rather enjoin upon the promotee concerned, to be
on the role, and, in the active service of the institution
concerned, uncontrovertedly at the phase of
.
consideration of his selection/CAS promotion rather by
the selection committee concerned. The legal sequel
thereof, is that only upon the petitioner being on the
date of his name being considered for his selection/CAS
promotion by the selection committee concerned, rather
on the role, and, in the active service of the educational
institution concerned, hence as a professor, thereupon
alone the benefit of selection/CAS promotion to the post
of Professor rather could become validly bestowed upon
him. From the afore evident factum, it appears, that the
benefit of promotion under the CAS was rather prima
facie not legitimately bestowable from the date
embodied in Annexure A4. The reason for making the
above inference spurs from the factum of the petitioner,
at the afore stage rather being not evidently in the active
service, and, on the role of the educational institution
concerned, hence as a Professor. Consequently, at the
phase of his name being considered by the selection
committee concerned, for his selection/CAS promotion,
to the post of Professor, prima facie he was not eligible
.
for apposite promotion. Nonetheless, the
recommendations of the selection committee concerned,
hence resulted in, the making of Annexure A4, on
27.1.2016, and, wherethrough, the benefit of promotion,
under the Career Advancement Scheme became meted
to the petitioner w.e.f. 4.1.2015.
r In sequel, even the
afore factum cannot become validated.
4. Be that as it may, the benefit of promotion,
and as claimed by the petitioner through Annexure A4,
and, as became meted to him w.e.f. 4.3.2015, cannot
also be validated rather merely, on anvil, that the afore
made promotion being not a strictosensu promotion to
the promotional post concerned, rather it merely
escalating his pay band hence coequal to that of the
higher/promotional post, as, thereupons, rather the
normative necessity of his being at the relevant stage in
the active service, and, on the role of the institution
concerned as Professor, norms whereof becomes
embodied in clause (supra), would suffer unwanted
breach, besides would become scuttled. Moreover, the
.
benefit(s) thereof, as granted to the beneficiary
concerned, hence under the Career Advancement
Scheme, rather is a benefit attached to the incumbency/
post, and, also only upon his functionally holding the
post of Professor, he becomes entitled thereto, and, is
not merely a notional or a fictional benefit, of enhanced
pay scale rather coequivalent to the pay band of a
Professor, even when he does not function thereagainst.
Unless, the afore interpretation, and, normative
necessity supra, is insisted upon, the entire purpose of
the apposite regulations appertaining to, and, governing
the norms of promotion(s) to the promotional post,
rather would become an ill causality.
5. Since the respondents in their reply meted, on
affidavit, to the writ petition, make a clear
uncontroverted contention, that the writ petitioner, did
not join, the promotional post w.e.f. 27.1.2016.
Consequently, since vide order dated 27.1.2016, the
writ petitioner became on the role, and, in the active
service as a Professor, in the educational institution
.
concerned. Therefore, when he at the afore stage hence
meted satiation to the interpretation (supra), as made to
the hereinabove extracted clause, as embodied in
Annexure A2, hence only from the afore date, he can
claim the benefit of the higher pay band, attached to his
selection/CAS, to the post of Professor, and, not from
4.3.2015, as becomes embodied in Annexure A4.
6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in
the extant writ petition, and, the same is accordingly
dismissed. All pending applications also dismissed.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
27th August, 2021
(kck)
