Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Sharmila Sandesh Ghuge, an Assistant Professor, challenged a Corrigendum dated 10/05/2019 issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department of the State of Maharashtra. The Corrigendum modified Clause-7.3(VI)(i) of the Government Resolution dated 08/03/2019, which originally provided that the date of promotion from Assistant Professor (Level 12) to Associate Professor (Level 13A) under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) would be the date of eligibility. The Corrigendum changed this to the date of selection. The petitioner argued that this change was arbitrary and adversely affected her seniority and service benefits. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, University of Mumbai, Joint Director Higher Education, and University Grants Commission, defended the Corrigendum as a clarification. The Court analyzed the original resolution and the Corrigendum, noting that the original resolution clearly stated that the date of promotion would be the date of eligibility. The Corrigendum, issued without any explanation, sought to change this to the date of selection, which would delay the promotion date for many employees. The Court held that the Corrigendum was arbitrary and unsustainable, as it defeated the legitimate expectation of employees who had already been promoted based on the original resolution. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Corrigendum, and directed that the date of promotion for the petitioner and similarly situated employees be the date of eligibility as per the original Government Resolution dated 08/03/2019.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Career Advancement Scheme - Date of Promotion - Date of Eligibility vs Date of Selection - The issue was whether the date of promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme should be the date of eligibility or the date of selection. The Court held that the date of promotion must be the date of eligibility, as the original Government Resolution dated 08/03/2019 provided, and the Corrigendum dated 10/05/2019 changing it to the date of selection was arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 1-24) B) Service Law - Government Resolution - Interpretation - Retrospective Modification - The Court examined the validity of a Corrigendum that retrospectively modified the date of promotion from the date of eligibility to the date of selection. It held that such modification, without any rationale, violated the legitimate expectation of employees and was liable to be set aside. (Paras 10-20) C) Service Law - Legitimate Expectation - Career Advancement Scheme - The Court applied the principle of legitimate expectation, holding that the petitioner, who had been promoted based on the original resolution, had a legitimate expectation that the date of promotion would be the date of eligibility. The Corrigendum defeated this expectation without justification. (Paras 15-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the date of promotion from Assistant Professor (Level 12) to Associate Professor (Level 13A) under the Career Advancement Scheme should be the date of eligibility or the date of selection, and whether the Corrigendum dated 10/05/2019 modifying the original Government Resolution dated 08/03/2019 is valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The Corrigendum dated 10/05/2019 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the date of promotion of the petitioner from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor as the date of eligibility as per the original Government Resolution dated 08/03/2019. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Date of promotion under Career Advancement Scheme
- Date of eligibility vs date of selection
- Interpretation of government resolutions
- Legitimate expectation
- Retrospective modification of service conditions
