Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of appointment to the post of Acting Director of the Home Science Institute, Agra University, after the permanent Director proceeded on long leave upon being appointed Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand University. The appellant, Dr. Km. Suman Agarwal, was a direct recruit Reader appointed with effect from July 1987. The third respondent, Dr. (Mrs.) Hiru Kumar, was a Lecturer since 1968, confirmed in 1969, and was promoted as Reader on 18 February 1985 under the personal promotion scheme. When the Director's post fell vacant, the Vice Chancellor initially appointed a committee headed by Dr. S.V. Pandey, including the appellant and the third respondent, to manage the Institute from 9 January 1995. Dr. Hiru Kumar filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that she had earlier officiated as Director in leave vacancies and being the senior-most teacher was entitled to be temporarily appointed as Acting Director. The High Court, by its order dated 24 May 1995 in Writ Petition No. 10669 of 1995, allowed the petition, holding that since the Executive Council had not approved the committee, and Dr. Hiru Kumar was the senior-most teacher, she was entitled to be temporarily kept in-charge of the post of Director. The High Court also directed the University to finalise appointment to the post of Professor within one month. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the third respondent, a personal promotee Reader, was senior to the appellant, a direct recruit Reader, for the purpose of being considered as Acting Director under Ordinance 4A of the University. The appellant contended that as a direct recruit, she belonged to the regular cadre of Reader, whereas the third respondent's promotion was personal and ex-cadre, not making her part of the regular cadre. Therefore, the appellant alone was eligible to be considered as Acting Director. The third respondent resisted, asserting her seniority and previous officiating experience. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, particularly Section 31A, and the relevant Statutes and Ordinances. Section 31A(1) permits personal promotion of Lecturers and Readers, Section 31A(3) protects direct recruit quota posts. Statute 11.12-B(11)(i) provides that a post filled by personal promotion is a temporary addition to the cadre and stands abolished when the incumbent ceases to occupy it. Thus, both direct recruits and personal promotees form part of the same cadre for the purpose of seniority. Statute 17.05(b) expressly provides that inter se seniority of teachers appointed by personal promotion or direct recruitment shall be determined according to length of continuous service in such cadre. The Court distinguished the case of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram University, (1995) 3 SCC 653, because in that case the statutory scheme under the Madhya Pradesh Act did not recognize personal promotions as creating cadre posts, whereas the U.P. Act and Statutes clearly did. Applying Statute 17.05(b), the Court found that the third respondent was promoted as Reader on 18.02.1985, while the appellant was directly recruited on 19.07.1987. Therefore, the third respondent had longer continuous service in the cadre of Reader and was senior to the appellant. The Court held that the High Court's approach of leaving the inter se seniority question open was not correct, as it was essential to decide seniority to resolve the Acting Director issue. Consequently, the third respondent was entitled to be considered as Acting Director based on her seniority in the Reader cadre. The final operative order in the provided text was not fully extracted, but the Court's reasoning clearly established the third respondent's seniority.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Inter se Seniority between Direct Recruits and Personal Promotee Readers - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Sections 31, 31A read with Statutes 11.12-B, 17.05 - The appellant was directly recruited as Reader in 1987; the third respondent was promoted as Reader under personal promotion scheme in 1985. The court held that a personal promotion creates a temporary addition to the cadre under Statute 11.12-B(11)(i), and both direct recruits and promotees form part of the same cadre. Inter se seniority must be determined according to length of continuous service in that cadre under Statute 17.05(b). Since the third respondent had longer continuous service as Reader (from 18.02.1985) than the appellant (from 19.07.1987), the third respondent is senior. Held that the High Court's approach of leaving seniority open was incorrect; the third respondent is senior for consideration as Acting Director. B) Service Law - Personal Promotion Scheme - Nature of Personal Promotion and Direct Recruit Quota - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Section 31A(3) - Personal promotion under Section 31A(1) does not entrench into the direct recruit quota preserved by Section 31A(3). The promotee holds a temporary addition to the cadre which stands abolished on cessation of service, and is not entitled to occupy direct recruit posts. However, the promotee remains part of the cadre for seniority purposes under Statute 17.05(b). Held that the third respondent cannot claim direct recruit quota but is senior by continuous service as Reader.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the third respondent, a Reader appointed by personal promotion, is senior to the appellant, a direct recruit Reader, for the purpose of appointment as Acting Director.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that under Statute 17.05(b), inter se seniority in the same cadre between teachers appointed by personal promotion and direct recruitment is determined according to length of continuous service in that cadre. Since the third respondent was promoted as Reader on 18.02.1985 and the appellant was directly recruited on 19.07.1987, the third respondent was senior to the appellant as a Reader. The High Court's approach of leaving the seniority question open was incorrect. The final operative order was not fully extracted in the provided text, but the court's reasoning supports the third respondent's seniority and entitlement to consideration as Acting Director.
Law Points
- Personal promotion under Section 31A creates temporary addition to cadre
- inter se seniority determined by length of continuous service in cadre under Statute 17.05(b)
- direct recruit quota protected under Section 31A(3)
- senior-most teacher for Acting Director under Ordinance 4A
