Allowed

Dr Priya N (M.Sc., Ph.D) v. the National Assessment and Accreditation

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024WP/6924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a writ petition, held that the petitioner's past service as an Assistant Professor must be reckoned alongside her service as an Assistant Adviser for promotion. The court quashed the refusal order and directed the NAAC to consider her case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Endorsement dated 23.03.2022 was quashed, and the NAAC was directed to consider the petitioner's case for promotion utilizing her past service.

Dr Priya N (M.Sc., Ph.D) Vs the National… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6924 OF 2022 (S-PRO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR PRIYA N (M.SC., PH.D) AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O SRIHARI SRINIVASAN, ASSISTANT ADVISER, NATIIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATIION COUNCIL, P O BOX NO.1075

¶9

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.09 15:16:59 +0530

¶10

NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE-560072

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. H. SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATE.

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION (AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION) P O BOX NO.1075, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE-560072 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶16

THE UNIVERISTY GRANTS COMMISSION (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H. R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS IN GENERAL AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN PARTICULAR, TO COUNT AND CONSIDER HER PAST REGULAR SERVICES RENDERED BEFORE HER JOINING THE SERVICES OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS CONTINUOUS REGULAR SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HER PROMOTION TO CADRE OF DEPUTY ADVISER IN THE SERVICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE VACANCIES IN THE SAID CADRE.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has impugned the Endorsement dated 23.03.2022 [ Annexure-Q ] issued by the National Assessment and Accreditation [ the NAAC -

¶23

the first respondent ]. The first respondent has issued this Endorsement dated 23.03.2022 informing the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶25

petitioner that her request for promotion to the post of Deputy Adviser cannot be considered because she has not completed the eligible " eight years of regular service as an Assistant Adviser ". The petitioner has sought for directions to the respondents, and more specifically to the first respondent, to consider her past service [for the period between 07.03.2011 and 22.08.2017] as an Assistant Professor with the Department of Geography, School of Earth Sciences, Central University of Karnataka for the purposes of promotion to the cadre of Deputy Adviser and for direction to consider promoting her to the cadre of Deputy Adviser with retrospective effect and grant all consequential benefits with such retrospective effect.

¶26

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has worked as an Assistant Professor with the Department of Geography, School of Earth Sciences, Central University of Karnataka [ the Central University ] for the period between 07.03.2011 and

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶28

22.08.2017. The petitioner has applied for

¶29

appointment to the post of Assistant Adviser [Unreserved - UR] with the NAAC after the Central University's Order dated 22.08.2017. This order refers to the petitioner retaining lien over her post with the University for a period of one year as per the Government of India norms. Thereafter, NAAC, on the petitioner’s selection, has issued appointment order vide order dated 23.08.2017 to the petitioner appointing her as Assistant Adviser [UR] inter alia on the condition that she would be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment subject to extension at the discretion of the competent authority.

¶30

The petitioner’s probation is declared on 05.12.2019 [ Annexure-C ]. The petitioner has requested for fixation of pay considering her service with the Central University. The NAAC vide its order dated 10.08.2018 [ Annexure-D ] has fixed her pay

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶32

protecting her services as an Assistant Professor with the Central University. The petitioner has filed repeated representations for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Adviser. Admittedly, the NAAC's Byelaw and the appended Cadre Recruitment Rules stipulate that for the purposes of promotion to the cadre of the Deputy Adviser, amongst others, a candidate must have completed eight years of combined service as an Assistant Professor in a College/University in a particular pay band [including AGP ] and that such candidate must have completed eight years of service in the feeder cadre viz., the cadre of Assistant Adviser .

¶33

Sri. H. Subramanya Jois, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner's past service [service as an Assistant Professor with the Department of Geography, Central University] is protected even for the purposes of promotion to the cadre of Deputy Adviser because of the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1998 issued by

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶35

the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions [Department of Personnel and Training], Government of India. When Sri. T. P. Muthanna, the learned counsel for the NAAC is heard in the light of this canvass, he submits that this would be only if the posts of Assistant Professor [a teaching job] could be equated with the post of Assistant Adviser and if it cannot be equated accordingly, the petitioner would not possess the eligible eight years of service in the feeder cadre for granting promotions to the next cadre [ the cadre of Deputy Advisers ].

¶36

Sri. H. Subramanya Jois, to persuade this

¶37

Court to opine that the petitioner’s service as an Assistant Professor must be considered along with her service as an Assistant Adviser with the NAAC for promotion, relies upon the following circumstances.

¶38

a) The petitioner's past service is protected for the purposes of pay fixation in the pay scale of Rs.79,900/- [Level - 11].

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶40

b) In the Circular dated 27.11.2018 issued notifying vacancies for filling up by promotions, the NAAC has specifically stipulated that mandatory Guidelines laid down for administrative staff and UGC Regulations for academic staff [7^th Pay Commission] issued from time to time would be applicable.

¶41

c) The UGC has substituted the earlier 2010 Regulations with its 2018 Regulations. If 2010 Regulations

¶42

provided for protection of past service on terms for certain posts including for posts as described in the appendix III – Table No. II appended to such Regulations, the 2018 Regulation does away with this specification while stipulating, apart from the qualification and the manner of recruitment, that equivalent grade or pre-revised pay

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶44

scale would be a dispositive factor for protection of past service for both direct recruitment and promotion.

¶45

d) The NAAC has issued Notification dated 28.02.2020 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Deputy Adviser on deputation, and insofar as the eligibility, this Notification stipulates that every officer holding analogous posts with three years of regular service in a particular pay scale with the Central and State Governments, Universities and other autonomous organizations having experience of educational administration, would be eligible. e) This stipulation would necessarily mean, subject to pay scale, an Assistant Professor would be eligible for deputation to the post of Deputy

¶46

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶47

Adviser. This would be an anomaly only to deprive promotion to those who have worked as Assistant Professors and later appointed as Assistant Advisers.

¶48

Sri. T. P. Muthanna, relying upon the

¶49

contentions in the Statement of Objections, submits that though pay scales of the Assistant Professor and Assistant Adviser are the same, the nature and responsibilities are different. The services rendered by an Assistant Adviser involves assessment and accreditation of Higher Education Institutions [HEIs] unlike an Assistant Professor, who is engaged in academic activities such as, teaching, research, publication etc. The learned counsel emphasizes that neither 2010 Regulation nor 2018 Regulations would be applicable to the NAAC as it cannot be extended to those working with/employed with the NAAC.

¶50

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶51

Sri. H. R. Showri, the learned counsel for

¶52

the UGC, submits that whether the UGC Guidelines [which provide for counting of past service must be applicable to the NAAC] must be a decision by the NAAC, but the learned counsel points out, as is pointed out by Sri. T. P. Muthanna, that there will be difference in the responsibilities and the work discharged by an Assistant Professor with a University or College and an Assistant Adviser with the NAAC.

¶53

It is obvious from the rival submissions

¶54

that if the petitioner contends that her service as an Assistant Professor with Central University must be considered along with her service as an Assistant Adviser with the NAAC for promotions to the post of Deputy Adviser because of equal pay scale for the post of Assistant Professor and Assistant Adviser posts and the Circular dated 27.11.2018/ the UGC 2010 Regulations, the NAAC and the UGC contend

¶55

11 -

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶57

that because of the dissimilarities in the roles and responsibilities discharged by an Assistant Professor and an Assistant Advisor, the petitioner’s services as an Assistant Professor cannot be counted.

¶58

The difference in the nature of

¶59

responsibilities discharged by an Assistant Professor and Assistant Adviser would remain indisputable, but the question is whether the petitioner’s service as an Assistant Professor must be counted for promotion to the post of Deputy Adviser. This Court is not called upon to decide on this question only because of dissimilarities in the nature of the responsibilities but

¶60

also in the light of the importance assigned to the UGC Regulations [which includes provisions for counting of past services] while notifying vacancies in the posts of Deputy Adviser by promotion. Therefore, the decision must turn on whether the NAAC has seen the dissimilarities as so different that it did not

¶61

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶62

even contemplate considering the past service as Assistant Professors.

¶63

At the outset, this Court must observe

¶64

that admittedly, for the purposes of direct recruitment to the cadre of Deputy Advisor, eight years of combined service as an Assistant Professor in a College/University in a particular pay band [including AGP] is made relevant. This vastly undermines the argument that the difference in responsibilities should be the dispositive factor. This Court must next refer to the Circular dated 27.11.2018, which is issued for filling up the vacant posts of Deputy Advisers by promotion.

¶65

This Circular dated 27.11.2018 refers to

¶66

the UGC Regulations thus:

¶67

" The details of pay scale, qualifications and procedure of appointment for each post are indicated in CRR of NAAC (copy enclosed).

¶68

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶69

Please note that the mandatory guidelines laid down for Administrative Staff and UGC regulations for Academic Staff (7^th Pay Commission related) issued from time to time is applicable for above posts."

¶70

The earlier UGC 2010 Regulations and the extant UGC 2018 Regulations insofar as counting of past service, excluding the other conditions which are essentially the same and not germane for the present dispute, read as under:

¶71

*Rule* *10.0* *COUNTING* OF	*Rule 10.0* *COUNTING OF*
*PAST SERVICES FOR DIRECT* *RECRUITMENT* *AND* *PROMOTION UNDER CAS of* *UGC 2010 REGULATIONS*	*PAST* *SERVICES* *FOR* *DIRECT RECRUITMENT AND* *PROMOTION UNDER CAS of* *UGC 2018 REGULATIONS*
10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or	Previous regular service, whether national or
international, as Assistant	international, as Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional	Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional
Organizations such as the	organisations such as the
CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC,	CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC,
ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc.,	ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR and DBT,
should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate	should count for the direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts	Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature, provided

¶72

14 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶74

are described as perAppendix III- Table No. II provided that: (a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the	that: (a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate
UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.	Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (b) The postis/was in an
(b) The postis/was in an	equivalent grade or of the pre-
equivalent grade or of the pre-	revised scale of pay as the
revised scale of pay as the post	post of Assistant Professor
of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.	(Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor. (c) The concerned Assistant
(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.	Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by
(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the	the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be.
post of Assistant Professor,	(d) The post was filled in
Associate Professor and	accordance with the
Professor, as the case may be.	prescribed selection procedure
	as laid down in the
(e) The post was filled in	Regulations of the
accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid	University/State Government/Central
down in the Regulations of	Government/ Institutions
University/ State	concerned, for such
Government/Central Government/Concerned	appointments.
Institutions, for such appointments.	(e) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration.¹

¶75

1 The next sub clause [f] which is as regards the past services as Guest lecturers are not extracted

¶76

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶77

The UGC 2018 Regulations, in a departure

¶78

from its earlier Regulations on counting past service, stipulates that previous regular service of an Assistant Professor in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organizations therein should count for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature. Under the earlier Regulations the posts by other nomenclature were limited to those mentioned in the concerned Appendix. This change does indicate, in this Court’s considered view, that the counting of past service is opened for a larger number of posts

¶79

.Further, the counting of past services continues to be dependent, apart from the essential qualifications and the manner of selection, on whether the post is an equivalent grade or of the prerevised scale of pay. The pay scales for the Assistant

¶80

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶81

Professor and Assistant Adviser, admittedly, are the same. This Court must observe that in the Circular dated 27.11.2018 for filling up the post of Deputy Adviser by promotion, a reference is made to the UGC Regulations saying such Regulation [revisited from time to time] would be applicable, but this Circular does not make an exception for the application of the UGC Regulations because of the difference in the nature of the responsibilities.

¶82

As emphasized, the NAAC is engaged in assessment of the different Educational Institutions and accreditation, which would not be outside the domain of a teaching staff, who is later appointed with the NAAC. Further, on a conjoint reading of Circular dated 27.11.2018 and the UGC Regulation [and the admitted fact that an Assistant Professor is taken on deputation as Deputy Advisor subject to completion of eight years], the petitioner’s service as an Assistant Professor with the Central University

¶83

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶84

cannot be ignored. In the light of the above, the Endorsement dated 23.02.2022 [ Annexure-Q ] cannot be sustained, and with this conclusion, the NAAC must consider the petitioner's case for promotion based on her past service as an Assistant Professor and her service as an Assistant Advisor in a time bound manner and pass just orders. Hence, the following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

[a] The petition is allowed quashing the NAAC - the first respondent's impugned Endorsement dated 23.03.2022 [ Annexure- Q] declaring that the

¶87

petitioner's past services as an Assistant Professor with the Central University must be reckoned to consider her completion of eight years in the feeder cadre of an Assistant Adviser.

¶88

[b] Consequentially, the NAAC is directed to consider the petitioner's case for

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:26630 WP No. 6924 of 2022

¶90

18 -

¶91

promotion and to enable such

¶92

consideration, the petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the NAAC.

¶93

[c] The NAAC shall consider and communicate its decision in the light of this observation to the petitioner within eight [8] weeks if a certified copy is filed within the time now enabled.

¶94

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶95

Dr Priya N (M.Sc., Ph.D) v. the National Assessment and Accreditation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Priya N (M.Sc., Ph.D) v. the National Assessment and Accreditation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Syed Hussain Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka State Co. Operative Vs Sri M B Parameshwar

Shankarappa M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddaiah Vs the Secretary

G M Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L v Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka