Remanded

Dr U D Tripathi v. University of Raj

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2011CW/3016/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging denial of personal promotion to Professor posts under the Career Advancement Scheme were decided. The court found that a committee rigidly applying 2002 criteria to 2001 scheme reforms, ignoring seniority, lacking comparative merit logic, and selectively evaluating publications resulted in rejection based on unsound reasoning. The matter is remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Remanded to respondents for reconsideration of candidates' eligibility under the scheme applicable at the time, to complete the exercise within three months with reasons if denial continues.

Dr U D Tripathi Vs University of Raj — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Writ Petition No.3016/2008 Dr UD Tripathi versus University of Rajasthan

¶6

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12655/2008

¶7

Dr Vishnu Gopal Gupta & anr versus University of Rajasthan

¶8

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/2008 Dr (Mrs) Chandra Kanta Sharma vs University of Rajasthan

Date of Order :

2^nd December, 2011

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶13

Mr SP Sharma, Sr Adv with Mr Ankit Sethi

¶14

Mr RN Mathur, Sr Adv with Mr Amit Tanwani - for petitioners Mr AK Sharma, Sr Adv with Mr VK Sharma – for the University BY THE COURT:

¶15

Since common question of law is involved based on similar facts, all these writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioners is in regard to denial of promotion to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme (for short 'the Scheme').

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the University Grants Commission (for short 'the UGC'), in exercise of the powers conferred by section 26(1) (e) and (g) read with section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') framed University Grants Commission Regulations, 2000 (for short 'the Regulations of 2000') to provide minimum qualification for appointment and Career Advance Scheme of teachers in the Universities and Colleges. The aforesaid scheme was framed in supersession to the earlier Regulations. Para 2.7.0 of the Regulations provides for promotion under the Scheme. Para 2.6.0 provides for selection committee for promotion. The eligible candidate is required to submit self appraisal report, research contribution/ books/ articles published and other academic contributions. One is required to submit three written contributions in advance to the expert committee.

¶19

The Regulations of 2000 underwent a modification on

¶20

21.5.2002 wherein for promotion to the post of Professor under the Scheme, one was required to submit five written contributions out of which two may be books and rest may be the papers. The respondent University did not adhere to the Regulations of 2000 properly thus it resulted in litigation before this court. The court, thereupon, issued directions to the respondents to reconsider cases of the eligible candidates in accordance with the prevalent UGC

¶21

¶22

Regulations as the University by itself modified the criteria for promotion. The aforesaid direction was made applicable to all concerned, which is, even if a candidate had not approached this court. The respondent University was under an obligation to consider case of each eligible candidate as per prevalent Regulations.

¶23

This court issued directions that those who were eligible for personal promotion under the Scheme prior to 1.3.2002 has to be considered as per criteria fixed by the UGC on 19.5.2001. Petitioners, accordingly, submitted their credentials with required material which was sufficient to satisfy the requirement for promotion under the Scheme. This is more so when there exist no rider regarding availability of posts of Professor for promotion. The respondent, however, denied benefit of promotion to the petitioners in an arbitrary and illegal manner. This is for the reason that the members of the selection committee were none else but erstwhile junior officers/ Professors to the petitioners thus, deliberately, they ignored the material placed before them by the petitioners.

¶24

In fact, no interview was required to be conducted as

¶25

the writ petition earlier decided by this court was containing a direction for reconsideration of candidature of the petitioners as

¶26

¶27

per pre-revised criteria thus whatever material was placed by the petitioners it should have been considered based on the criteria prior to 1.3.2002.

¶28

The committee further made comparison between the candidates whereas no such consideration was permissible because personal promotion was to be extended irrespective of availability of posts, thereby, selection committee recommended candidates for promotion based on their own whims which can be looked into from the record itself as it does not contain any reason for denial of benefit of personal promotion to the petitioners. The selection was conducted against the spirit of the order passed by this court on the earlier occasion.

¶29

It is submitted that even the selection committee was not formed properly by the Vice Chancellor as it was containing two experts of one subject i.e. Organic Chemistry while third expert was from Physical Chemistry, whereas, three experts should have been of three different fields namely, Organic, In-organic and Physical Chemistry. The selection committee, while undertaking the exercise, considered even those who were not earlier considered and selected them leaving the petitioners who are much senior to them. The entire exercise for denial of promotion to the petitioners was undertaken with bias thus aforesaid exercise is to

¶30

¶31

be declared illegal with directions to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners on the post of Professor.

¶32

Learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, submits that selection committee made consideration strictly as per directions of the court. This was pursuant to the Regulations of 2000 and, while undertaking the exercise for consideration of candidature of eligible candidates, recommendations were not made with making comparison between the candidates thus allegations of pick and choose are wholly baseless.

¶33

The selection committee considered required material and each candidate was called for the interview wherein they appeared without any protest thus, now, a grievance for calling them for interview is misconceived one, rather, petitioners are estopped to raise the aforesaid plea having appeared in the interview without protest.

¶34

The criteria for promotion has otherwise been prescribed under Ordinance 141(i) which provides that personal promotion to the post of Professor can be given only when one possesses requisite qualification and merit, thereby, recommended by the selection committee and approved by the Syndicate.

¶35

¶36

The committee was constituted as per rules, wherein, there is no direction that independent experts should be of the subjects like Organic, In-organic and Physical Chemistry. In fact, experts were to be of the subject like Chemistry, Physics etc and not of sub-branches of the aforesaid subjects thus constitution of the committee was not illegal in any manner .

¶37

So far as allegation that members of the selection committee were even those who were erstwhile junior to the petitioners is concerned, the allegations have been made without considering the fact that constitution of selection committee has to be as per rules and if it requires to consists of experts as well as the Professors then those working in the University have to be made member of the selection committee. Professors as available were thus made part of selection committee. The said committee had no bias against the petitioners, rather it made proper scrutiny of entire record and, thereupon made its recommendations.

¶38

The consideration of candidature was made by the committee of those who were eligible in view of the directions of the court thus even if a candidate was not earlier considered, though eligible, the committee considered candidature of such eligible candidates as per directions of the court. Hence, no ground is made out to allow the prayers made by the petitioners thus writ

¶39

¶40

petitions may be dismissed accordingly.

¶41

I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully.

¶42

The present matter pertains to grant of personal promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme as was applicable prior to 1.3.2002. According to the respondents, candidature of the petitioners was considered as per the criteria fixed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 19.5.2001 thus the present matter is to be considered and decided taking note of the scheme then prevalent as there as a change in the scheme at a subsequent stage from the month of March, 2002. Grievance of the petitioners is regarding constitution of committee alleging that person junior to them in the seniority were made members of the committee thus the whole selection was conducted with bias and pre judice.

¶43

I have considered the aforesaid argument and find that the committee was required to be constituted as per the Regulations and as the petitioners who retired prior to fresh consideration, the committee was constituted from and amongst the available officers who may be even junior to the petitioners but merely for that reason constitution of the committee cannot be said

¶44

¶45

to be illegal. It cannot be presumed that there were bias or pre judice in the minds of the members of the committee unless proved and there is no material to prove it other than dealt with. First argument of the learned counsel for petitioners thus cannot be accepted.

¶46

So far as the experts of the subject is concerned, I find that nomination of the expert was as per subject for which selection has been made. Petitioners have tried to bifurcate the subject with further disciplines therein like for the subject of Chemistry it is bifurcated further in Organic, Inorganic and Physical Chemistry though such bifurcation does not exist for the post of Professor (Chemistry) thus what was required was that the expert should be in the field of Chemistry. Same way, the expert in all other subjects. The constitution of committee was made with the experts in the subject thus second argument raised by the petitioners is also not worth acceptance.

¶47

The third issue raised by the petitioners is that comparative merit of the candidates has been looked into before making recommendations. For the aforesaid purpose, I have looked into the original record produced before me but do not find

¶48

any element of comparison of candidates for making recommendations in favour of or against them. The issue raised by

¶49

¶50

the petitioners aforesaid is not borne out from the record.

¶51

The grievance of the petitioners is even that those who were not earlier considered and even not approached this court have also been considered along with the petitioners. I find no substance in the aforesaid argument also because while deciding the earlier writ petitions this court gave a direction to the respondent University to consider candidature of all eligible candidates as per the criteria provided then by the UGC and the Regulations existing. Accordingly, respondents have done noting but complied with the direction of this court.

¶52

The last argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that candidature of the petitioners should have been considered based on the record without calling then for interview in view of the directions given by this court in the earlier writ petition thus all the names for promotion have been recommended on the whims and fancies of selection committee.

¶53

To consider the aforesaid argument, I have gone through the original record of the University. I find that candidature of the petitioners was directed to be considered as per the Scheme/ Regulations then existing in the year 2001, accordingly, respondents called all the petitioners for interview

¶54

¶55

and to reconsider their cases based on the material supplied for such consideration. In the aforesaid background, calling the petitioners for interview cannot be said to be illegal. This is more so when no protest was made by them for their interview before or immediately thereafter. After knowing the result and recommendations, petitioners are estopped to challenge about their interview by the committee. Accordingly, first part of the last argument cannot be accepted.

¶56

So far as the allegation that committee has made recommendations on their whims and fancies is concerned, I have gone through the original record and find that no material exist to show as to why petitioners have been denied promotion moreso when they were not found unsuitable. I find that all the petitioners were found eligible for personal promotion and it has not been disputed by the respondents that personal promotion under the Scheme is not subject to availability of the post of Professor and by taking comparison merit. Accordingly, all those who are found eligible and considered to be suitable for promotion cannot be deprived to the aforesaid benefit. Perusal of the original record of the committee shows that all the petitioners were having required qualification and material to get the benefit of personal promotion yet denied the benefit without any justified reason. It is true that mere possession of eligibility may not be a ground to get

¶57

¶58

promotion as a matter of right but denial thereof must be on cogent reasons.

¶59

For illustration, Dr UD Tripathi (CW -3016/2008) was in possession of required documents/ papers/ publication apart from other qualification in his credit. His case was recommended favourably to the committee for promotion but the committee did not recommend his name. Perusal of the committee report, at one place, shows that he not having any paper/publication/documents to his credit after the year 2002 ignoring the fact that consideration of candidature was to be as per the scheme of 2001and, based on the material, upto the date relevant. The committee further ignored the fact that Dr UD Tripathi stood retired in the year 2002 itself. Thus he was not required to possess any paper/ publication/ document after the aforesaid period. In the aforesaid background, consideration of petitioners candidature cannot be said to be based on sound principles.

¶60

It is pleaded that reasons are not required to be given by the committee but the fact remains that whatever exercise undertaken by the respondents for providing personal promotion under the scheme, should be based on sound reasoning which is totally absent herein.

¶61

¶62

The list of material/ paper/ publication submitted and placed on record in regard to the petitioners shows that they were fulfilling the required conditions and there is nothing adverse against them. Accordingly, even if the committee had no bias against the petitioners, denial of benefit of personal promotion to them is not based on sound reasoning as otherwise even learned counsel for respondents could not satisfy as to why petitioners were denied personal promotion. This is more so when it is agreed that no comparative merit was looked by the committee as otherwise personal promotion under the scheme was irrespective of availability of post of Professor.

¶63

In the background aforesaid, matter needs to be remanded back to the respondents for reconsideration of candidature of petitioners as per the scheme then existing and based on the material already submitted. It is ordered accordingly. It is expected now from the University that while considering candidature of the petitioners again, same would not be with bias on account of present litigation and if the petitioners are not yet found fit for personal promotion under the scheme, reasons thereof would be supplied to make the things transparent and appropriate. The directions aforesaid have been given looking to the argument of the counsel for respondents stating that no bias of any one exists against the petitioners and original record is produced

¶64

¶65

before this court to indicate the aforesaid thus respondents themselves want to be transparent on the issue.

¶66

Necessary exercise, as indicated above, is expected to

¶67

be initiated and completed at the earliest, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If petitioners are recommended for personal promotion, they would be extended all consequential benefits which includes benefits on their retirement, if any.

¶68

With the aforesaid observations and directions, all

¶69

these writ petition so as the stay applications are disposed of.

¶70

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶71

bnsharma

¶72

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶73

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Dr U D Tripathi v. University of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr U D Tripathi v. University of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetu Urf Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Dharma Ram and Ors. Vs State Sanskrit Education Depors

Shahdab Mirza and Anr. Vs State Education Departmentors

Abdul Wahid and Ors. Vs State Sub and Ministrial Servanr

Narendra Kumar Jatav Vs State Forest Departmentors

Kavita Vs State Education Departmentors