Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dr. Rajendra Mishra vs University Of Jammu And Others on 29 October, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 01.10.2021
Pronounced on 29.10.2021
SWP No. 1447/2017
Dr. Rajendra Mishra .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate
v/s
University of Jammu and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Ajay Abrol, Advocate for Nos. 1 to
3
Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate for
No. 4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Quashing the communication bearing No. F.9-3/2010 (PS/Misc.) Pt.
F1-III dated 06.03.2017 addressed by respondent No. 4 to the Principal
Secretary to Governor‟s Secretariat J&K, Raj Bhawan, Jammu,
whereby and where under, the UGC has conveyed that there is no
justification for grant of retrospective Career Advancement Scheme
promotion to the petitioner from the date of his eligibility in the cadre;
(b) Quashing the communication bearing No. Adm/TW/2017/788 dated
30.05.2017 addressed by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner;
(c) Quashing the communication dated 14.03.2017 addressed by the office
of the Hon‟ble Chancellor‟s office;
(d) Direction to the respondents to grant the promotion to the petitioner as
Professor under Career Advancement Scheme i.e. w.e.f. 04.08.2019,
when the petitioner acquired eligibility for promotion, to the post of
Professor along with all consequential benefits;
(e) Directing respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioner as
Professor w.e.f. 04.08.2009.
2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was initially appointed as
Lecturer, Management Studies pursuant to the selection made by the
Selection Committee of Jammu University vide letter of appointment dated
17.06.1992 and later on, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Lecturer
under Career Advancement Scheme vide order dated 19.12.2000 and
thereafter, the petitioner was further promoted as Reader under the Career
Advancement Scheme vide order dated 04.09.2004 and thereafter, the
petitioner was promoted as Senior Lecturer with retrospective effect w.e.f.
27.07.1998 vide order dated 07.12.2007 and the promotion of the petitioner
as Reader was also given retrospective effect w.e.f. 04.08.2001. Later on,
by way of subsequent order dated 17.12.2007, order dated 07.12.2007 was
modified and the retrospective effect of promotion of the petitioner to the
post of Senior Lecturer and Reader was changed i.e. instead of 27.07.1998,
the effect of the promotion of the petitioner as Senior Lecturer was given
from 04.08.1998 and insofar as, post of Reader is concerned, the same was
changed from 04.08.2001 to 04.08.2003. The petitioner was further
promoted as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 04.08.2006. It is further stated that
the University Grant Commission respondent No. 4 herein in exercise of
powers conferred under Clause (e) and (g) of the sub-section (1) of section
26 of the University Grant Commission(UGC) Act, 1956 framed the UGC
(Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic
Staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the Maintenance
of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (for short the UGC
Regulations, 2010). Regulation/Clause 1.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010
provides that in the event, any candidates become eligible for promotion
under Career Advancement Scheme in terms of these Regulations on or
after 31.12.2008, the promotion of such candidate is to be governed by the
provisions of these regulations.
3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3-University of Jammu issued an advertisement
on 18.09.2012 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of
Professors and since the petitioner was fully eligible, therefore, he
responded to the aforesaid advertisement for direct recruitment and as the
petitioner stood promoted as Associate Professor (w.e.f. 04.08.2006),
therefore, as per Regulation 4.4.5. sub-regulation (3) of the UGC
Regulations, 2010, the petitioner became eligible for direct recruitment as
Professor after completion of 10 years of total teaching experience with 05
years at the level of Reader (i.e. on 04.08.2008), therefore, the UGC-
respondent No. 4 vide communication dated 20.05.2013 called the
petitioner for appearing in the interview for the post of Professor under
direct recruitment process. The interview of the petitioner was not
conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner vide representation dated 25.10.2013
requested the Vice Chancellor of the Jammu University respondent No. 2
herein to conduct the interview of the petitioner immediately and forthwith.
4. The respondent No. 1 referred the matter regarding the eligibility of the
petitioner to the Dean Business Studies/Director, Colleges, Development
Council, who held the petitioner eligible for interview for the post of
Professor under Regulations 4.4.5 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and
accordingly, the Assistant Registrar (C&R) submitted the decision to the
Registrar of the Jammu University for approval, so that the call letter is
issued to the petitioner and other eligible candidates. The Registrar, in turn,
submitted the case for approval to the Vice Chancellor and the Vice
Chancellor instead of granting approval, sought the information as to what
transpired in the meeting of the Selection Committee that was fixed on
25.09.2014 and also sought the clarification as to whether the existing
Professors in the Jammu University could be shifted from Career
Advancement Scheme to open recruitment process and vice versa. It is
further submitted that the respondent-University did not conclude the
selection process for direct recruitment initiated in the year, 2012 despite
having found the petitioner eligible for the said post. The petitioner claims
that he was eligible for direct recruitment as Professor and for promotion
under Career Advancement Scheme as well, however, as the grade attached
to the post of Professor under direct recruitment process was higher than
that was attached to the post of Professor under Career Advancement
Scheme, therefore, the petitioner opted for direct recruitment.
5. It is further submitted that again in the year 2015, the University of Jammu
issued advertisement bearing No. Adm/TW/(C&R)/15/774-825 dated
16.10.2015 inviting applications for the post of Professor in the
Management Studies under direct recruitment quota and simultaneously,
the University of Jammu also issued circular inviting applications from
eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Professor under Career
Advancement Scheme as per UGC Regulations, 2010. The petitioner
applied under the UGC Regulations, 2010 for promotion as Professor under
Career Advancement Scheme and the petitioner was found eligible for
promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme w.e.f. 04.08.2009 i.e.
the date, when the petitioner completed three years experience/service as
Associate Professor. It is further stated that the Selection Committee
constituted under UGC Regulations, 2010 for promotion of Associate
Professor to the post of Professor in Management Studies under Career
Advancement Scheme, in its meeting held on 06.05.2016 recommended the
petitioner for promotion as Professor w.e.f. the date of the eligibility i.e.
04.08.2009, however, contrary to the Regulations 16.3 of UGC
Regulations, 2010 that provides for grant of seniority with reference to the
date of eligibility, the Selection Committee recommended for reckoning the
seniority of the petitioner from the date of his joining as Professor.
6. It is further stated that pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection
Committee for promotion of the petitioner as Professor under Career
Advancement Scheme w.e.f. the date of his eligibility i.e. w.e.f. 04.08.2009,
the University of Jammu submitted the case of the petitioner for approval
before the Chancellor i.e. the Governor of J&K. It is further claimed by the
petitioner that before the case of the petitioner was submitted to the
Chancellor for approval, one Dr. Alka Sharma preferred a representation
dated 28.04.2016 to the Vice Chancellor stating therein that she was
interviewed under Career Advancement Scheme for promotion as Professor
in January, 2012 and was promoted with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f.
23.03.2010 when she acquired the eligibility, therefore, in case the
recommendation of the Selection Committee is acted upon insofar as
petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as
Professor w.e.f. 04.08.2009 and consequently shall become senior to Dr.
Alka Sharma. In the representation, Dr. Alka Sharma had stated that since
the petitioner had not applied three months prior to the eligibility for
promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, as such, he could not be
promoted with retrospective effect from the date of eligibility i.e. w.e.f.
04.08.2009 despite the fact that Dr. Alka Sharma had also not applied three
months prior to her gaining eligibility.
7. It is further stated that the official respondents had promoted Dr. Alka
Sharma as Professor w.e.f. from the date she acquired eligibility, despite the
fact that she had not applied three months prior to the due date of eligibility
for promotion as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme, yet the
Office of the Chancellor addressed a communication to the UGC on
09.01.2017 seeking a clarification as to whether a candidate who does not
apply three months in advance i.e. prior to the due date of eligibility, can be
considered for retrospective promotion under Career Advancement Scheme
and in response to the aforesaid communication, the UGC through the
medium of communication dated 06.03.2017 conveyed that the reason
assigned by the petitioner not to apply three months in advance i.e. three
months prior to the date of eligibility that the petitioner had applied for
direct recruitment is not tenable and the petitioner was under an obligation
to apply three months in advance, therefore, cannot be considered for
retrospective promotion under Career Advancement Scheme.
8. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 21.04.2017
forwarded the communication of the UGC to the petitioner and finally the
respondent No. 3 vide impugned communication dated 30.05.2017
suggested the petitioner to take further necessary action in light of
communication dated 21.04.2017 i.e. for reprocessing the case in terms of
communication of UGC-respondent No. 4 dated 06.03.2017(supra).
9. The petitioner has impugned the communications dated 06.03.2017 issued
by respondent No. 4, communication dated 30.05.2017 issued by the
respondent No. 3 and communication dated 14.03.2017 issued by the office
of the Chancellor on the following grounds:
(i) that the impugned communications are illegal and unconstitutional,
inasmuch as Regulation 6.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 only
provides that in case a candidate wishes to be considered for
promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, he may submit in
writing to the University, within three months in advance of the due
date that he fulfills the qualification under the Career Advancement
Scheme and submit to the University certain documents. It is stated
that the Regulation 6.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 does not
provide for submission of application and the communication dated
14.03.2017 is contrary to the Regulation 6.3.1 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010.
(ii) that the action of the respondents in denying the retrospective
promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.08.2009 is in violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as Dr. Alka
Sharma too had also not applied with three months in advance from
the date of her eligibility yet despite the fact that she was interviewed
in the year, 2012 and was promoted with retrospective effect i.e.
w.e.f. 23.03.2010 i.e. from the date of her eligibility. It is also stated
that besides Dr. Alka Sharma, number of other faculty members too
have been granted promotion with retrospective effect from the date
of their eligibility despite the fact that they had also not applied three
months prior to the date of their eligibility.
(iii) That once the Selection Committee had recommended the case of the
petitioner for promotion as Professor under Career Advancement
Scheme w.e.f. the date of the eligibility of the petitioner i.e.
04.08.2009, there was no occasion for the respondents not to grant
the promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his eligibility when
the official respondents granted such promotion not only to Dr. Alka
Sharma but to many other faculty members as well, therefore, the
impugned communications are required to be quashed.
(iv) that the Regulation/Clause 6.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010,
nowhere provides for submission of application within three months
in advance of the due date, seeking consideration of promotion as
Professor under Career Advancement Scheme and what is provided
in Regulation 6.3.1 is that a Teacher who wishes to be considered for
promotion under Career Advancement Scheme may submit in
writing to the University within three months in advance of due date
that he/she fulfils all qualification under Career Advancement
Scheme and submit to the University the Performance Basis
Appraisal System Performa, so that no delay is caused in holding
selection committee meetings. The aforesaid obligation on the part of
a Teacher is directory and not mandatory and no consequences are
provided on account of failure by the Teacher to submit to the
University with three months in advance of due date, that he/she
qualifies the criteria under Career Advancement Scheme.
(v) that the respondent-Jammu University for the first time issued a
circular dated 24.03.2017 whereby it was impressed upon the teacher
to submit in writing within three months in advance of the due date
and even in the circular, the University incorporated the expression
„within‟ from nowhere, whereas Regulation 6.3.1 uses the expression
„with‟ and prior to 24.03.2017 all those teachers who were promoted
to various posts including the post of Professor under Career
Advancement Scheme, majority of them including Dr. Alka Sharma
did not apply within three months in advance.
10. Response stands filed by the respondent-University in which the stand
taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was promoted as Reader on
04.08.2003 and as Associate Professor on 04.08.2006. The application of
the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was called for interview on
21.05.2013. The interview of the petitioner was not conducted as the
Selection Committee pointed out that the API scores are required to be
calculated in respect of the petitioner prior to the conduct of the interview
and accordingly a clarification was sought from the UGC as to whether API
scores are required for confirmation for promotion in respect of faculty of
Management Studies having no managerial experience in industry or
otherwise and the same was accordingly clarified by the respondent No. 4-
UGC vide communication dated 21.10.2013. It is further stated that as per
Clause 4.4.5 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, post under the direct
recruitment in the Business School was to be filled up in terms of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 but the post could not be filled up because the petitioner
was a in-service candidate and as per the Selection Committee, clause 4.4.5
of the UGC Regulations, 2010 was not applicable in case of the petitioner
and due to non fulfillment of the eligibility/experience, the petitioner was
not eligible for direct recruitment. The respondents further submitted that
the Selection Committee opined that the petitioner be recommended to be
given effect of seniority from the date he joined as Professor in the
Business School, however, the financial and service benefits have been
recommended to be given to the petitioner as per norms. The respondents
have admitted that Dr. Alka Sharma came to be promoted as Professor in
the month of January 2012 w.e.f. 23.03.2010 on the basis of her eligibility
and submission of her application in this behalf. The respondents have
stated that pursuant to the communication issued by respondent No. 4, the
petitioner was held not entitled to the promotion as Professor w.e.f. his
attaining eligibility as the petitioner had applied for promotion under Career
Advancement Scheme after the delay of six years.
11. University Grant Commission, respondent No. 4 has also filed the response,
in which it is stated that the Regulations issued by the respondent No. 4 are
mandatory in nature and clause 6.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 is also
mandatory and it is mandatory for the incumbent who wishes to be
considered for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme to submit in
writing to the University/college with three months in advance of the due
date.
12. The petitioner has also filed the supplementary affidavit in which it is stated
that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has come
across a communication dated 12.01.2018 addressed by the Registrar,
University of Jammu to the Under Secretary to Governor, Secretariat, Raj
Bhawan, Jammu through the medium of which the Secretariat has been
conveyed that in past also, cases of some Assistant Professors who had
applied at a later stage than the prescribed period for applying under Career
Advancement Scheme for promotion to the next higher stage have been
approved and accepted and accordingly a request has been made to
reconsider the decision already communicated to the University vide
communication dated 14.03.2017 and a request has been made to accord an
approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee for
promotion of the petitioner as Professor w.e.f. 04.08.2009 i.e. the date of
his eligibility to the cadre.
13. The petitioner has also placed on record the orders regarding the
sanctioning of promotion in favour of the various persons under Career
Advancement Scheme under the UGC Regulations, 2010 whom the
petitioner claims that they had applied for promotion after due date of three
months and the said orders include the sanction of promotion with
retrospective effect.
14. Pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2021, the respondent No. 1 has filed the
affidavit in which it is admitted by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner
acquired eligibility for becoming Professor in the year, 2009 under the
Career Advancement Scheme in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and
as the petitioner did not apply in time as stipulated in Clause 6.3.1. of the
UGC Regulations, 2010, his case could not be presented before the
Selection Committee and in the meantime, other eligible Associate
Professors applied for their consideration and their cases were placed
before the Selection Committee from time and time and they have been
promoted as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme and further that
none of them has been arrayed as party respondent by the petitioner in the
present petition. It is further admitted that the Selection Committee on
06.05.2016 recommended that the Chancellor may kindly approve the
recommendations made by the Selection Committee for the promotion of
Dr. Rajender Mishra, petitioner herein as Professor in the Business School
under Career Advancement Scheme under rules with effect from
04.08.2009 i.e. the date of his eligibility to the cadre. The respondent No. 1
has also admitted that Dr. Romesh Kumar was promoted as Associate
Professor in the year, 2009 and was due for promotion as Professor in the
year, 2012. Dr. Romesh Kumar applied for promotion under Career
Advancement Scheme on 29.08.2014 and the Selection Committee
recommended his promotion with effect from date of his eligibility to the
cadre. His case was sent for approval and after obtaining approval,
promotion order has been issued vide order dated 20.12.2018. A perusal of
order dated 20.12.2018 reveals that Dr. Romesh Kumar has been granted
promotion with effect from 24.10.2012.
15. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted
that the respondent No. 1 has admitted that the petitioner has acquired
eligibility for promotion as Professor with effect from 04.08.2009 and as
per Clause 6.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, the petitioner was entitled
to promotion from the date of his eligibility i.e. with effect from
04.08.2009. He further submitted that there was no stipulation in the UGC
Regulations, 2010 that provided any limitation for the candidates, who had
already acquired the eligibility for promotion prior to the coming into force
of the said Regulations as such the case of the petitioner has been wrongly
considered and rejected by the respondents. Mr. Sharma further argued that
earlier also numbers of candidates have been granted promotions with
effect from the date of their eligibility notwithstanding the fact that they
had not applied within the period of limitation as prescribed under rules. He
laid much stress on the promotion order that was issued in favour of Dr.
Romesh Kumar. He further submitted that even Dr Alka Sharma was much
junior to him and she too did not apply within three months.
16. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Abrol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
University has vehemently submitted that the case of the petitioner was
recommended by the Selection Committee, however, the office of the
Chancellor did not approve the same on the basis of the communication
dated 06.03.2017 and further that the candidates, who have been promoted
in the intervening period have not been arrayed as party.
17. Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4-
University Grant Commission has argued that as per the UGC Regulations,
2010, the teacher who wishes to be considered for promotion under Career
Advancement Scheme, may submit in writing to the University/College,
with three months in advance of the due date and further that the reasoning
given by the petitioner for delay of six years is not tenable as it was
mandatory on his part to apply for promotion within prescribed time frame.
18. With the consent of the parties the matter was heard finally heard. Perused
the record as well.
19. The only issues that arise for the consideration of this court is as to whether
the petitioner is entitled to promotion with effect from 04.08.2009 ?
20. In order to appreciate the present controversy, it is apt to take note of the
Clause 6.3.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 dated 30.06.2010 and the same
are reproduced as under:
"A teacher who wishes to be considered for promotion under
CAS may submit in writing to the university/college, with three
months in advance of the due date, that he/she fulfils all
qualifications under CAS and submit to the university/college
the Performance Based Appraisal System proforma as evolved
by the concerned university duly supported by all credentials as
per the API guidelines set out in these Regulations. In order to
avoid delays in holding Selection Committees meetings in
various positions under CAS, the University/College should
immediately initiate the process of screening/selection, and
shall complete the process within six months from the date of
application. Further, in order to avoid any hardships, candidates
who fulfill all other criteria mentioned in these Regulations, as
on 31 December, 2008 and till the date on which this
Regulation is notified, can be considered for promotion from
the date, on or after 31 December, 2008, on which they fulfill
these eligibility conditions, provided as mentioned above."
21. The Regulation 6.3.1 envisages two situations. The first part of this
Regulation is applicable to a candidate who earns eligibility to promotion
after coming into force of these Regulations and in such case, he/she is
under obligation to apply three months prior to the due date, for
consideration of her/his case under Career Advancement Scheme. The
University Grant Commission Regulations (Minimum Qualifications for
appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and other measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations, 2010 came to be notified on 30.06.2010. The
above mentioned Regulations provide for that the teacher who wishes to be
considered for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme may
submit in writing to the University/college with three months in advance of
the due date, that he/she fulfills all qualifications under the Career
Advancement Scheme and submit to the University/college the
Performance Based Appraisal System performa as evolved by the
concerned University duly supported by all credentials as per the API
guidelines set out in these Regulations. Further in order to avoid delay in
holding the Selection Committee meetings, the university/college has been
called upon to initiate the process of screening/selection and complete the
same within six months from the date of application.
22. The second part of the Regulation 6.3.1 provides that candidates who
fulfilled all other criteria mentioned in these Regulations as on 31.12.2008
and till date these Regulations are notified can be considered for promotion
from the date on or after 31.12.2008 on which they fulfill these eligibility
conditions provided as mentioned above. This part of the Regulations is
applicable to those candidates who have already attained the eligibility for
being considered for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme as
on 31.12.2008 or before these Regulations are notified.
23. The expression "due date" used in the Regulation (supra) is nowhere
defined explicitly but the tone and tenor of the first part of the Regulation
reveals that the due date would mean the date of acquisition of eligibility.
This is substantiated by the circular dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure-W to the
writ petition) issued by the respondent No:1 that if the candidate applies
later than his/her eligibility date, no claim for retrospective
promotion/placement under CAS shall be entertained.
24. Admittedly these regulations were notified on 30.06.2010. There is no
quarrel between the parties that the petitioner earned eligibility on
04.08.2009 whereas the present Regulations were notified on 30.06.2010.
The period of limitation of three months as provided in the first part of the
Clause 6.3.1. (supra) is applicable to those candidates who earned eligibility
after 31.12.2008 or the notification of these Regulations. Thus the
candidates who attains eligibility after the notification of regulations have
to apply for promotion with three months in advance of the due date
whereas in case of candidates who have already attained the eligibility prior
to the enforcement of these Regulations, the limitation of three months
become meaningless. In case the intention of the UGC had been to provide
limitation for even those candidates who had acquired the eligibility prior to
the notification of the regulations, then UGC would have specifically
provided the limitation of three months even for those candidates as well.
25. There is another aspect of the matter as well that so far as the
communication dated 06.03.2017 addressed by the respondent No. 4 to
respondent No. 3 is concerned it is evident that no reason has been assigned
as to why the reason for the delay mentioned was not satisfactory. The
petitioner earlier applied for post of professor under direct recruitment but
for one reason or other the petitioner could not succeed. The petitioner
applied for post of professor under direct recruitment as the higher grade
was attached to the said post vis-à-vis post of professor under CAS
promotion. It was only when the petitioner was not found eligible for the
post of professor under direct recruitment as the petitioner was already in
service, then the petitioner opted for the post of professor under these
regulations. So it cannot be said the explanation of delay was not
satisfactory.
26. From the record, it is also evident that the respondent No. 1 has already
considered the case of a similarly situated persons including Dr. Romesh
Kumar who earned eligibility to the cadre in the year, 2012 and he applied
for the scheme on 29.08.2014 and the retrospective benefit of promotion
was granted to him when he acquired the eligibility to the cadre. In the case
of Dr. Romesh Kumar though he earned eligibility after the enforcement of
the UGC Regulations, 2010, but even the mandatory provision of three
months was not taken into consideration by the respondent No. 1 and
promotion was granted to him with retrospective effect. Even Dr Alka
Sharma was granted promotion in the year 2012 with effect from her
acquiring eligibility and in the relevant column regarding the date of
application in the information furnished under RTI by the University of
Jammu, the word "nil" has been mentioned. More so, a perusal of the letter
dated 12.01.2018 addressed by the respondents 1-3 to the office of the
Chancellor reveals that in the past also some teachers had applied later than
the prescribed period for applying under Career Advancement Scheme for
promotion to the next higher stage have been approved and accepted and
request was made for approval of the recommendation of the Selection
Committee to grant the benefit of the promotion to the petitioner with effect
from 04.08.2009. So there is clear admission on the part of respondent Nos.
1 to 3 that in the past also the candidates who earned eligibility after the
enforcement of these Regulations were granted the benefit of retrospective
promotion even when they had applied after the stipulated period of three
months. Even after the claim of the petitioner was rejected, Dr. Romesh
Kumar has been granted promotion with effect from 24.10.2012 despite the
fact that he applied on 29.08.2014. The petitioner cannot be discriminated
against and as such on this score also the rejection of the claim of the
petitioner is illegal, unwarranted and unjustified.
27. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that
the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner for his
promotion with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 04.08.2009, as
such, communication dated 06.03.2017 issued by the respondent No. 4 to
respondent No. 3 and the consequential orders/communications of the
respondents-University dated 14.03.2017 and 30.05.2017 are quashed. The
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are further directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for grant of the promotion to the post of Professor under the
Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 04.08.2009 afresh and in the
event of grant of promotion w.e.f 04.08.2009, he be put at the relevant
place in the seniority list after notice to the effected candidates who have
already been promoted under the CAS in the intervening period. The
requisite exercise be done within three months from the date copy of this
order is furnished to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge
JAMMU:
29.10.2021
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
