Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the claim of an Assistant Professor (Physical Education) at Bharathiar University for grant of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) benefits. The first respondent filed a writ petition seeking CAS benefits as and when they fell due, with all accrued service benefits, and challenged a rejection order. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 19.10.2023, directing promotion of the first respondent from 2012. The University, through its Registrar and Vice Chancellor, filed the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the writ order. The University Grants Commission was suo motu impleaded as the second respondent. The undisputed facts were that the first respondent was appointed on contract basis in 2008 and was regularly appointed as Assistant Professor (Physical Education) with effect from 25.08.2014. The appellants contended that the UGC Regulations prescribe eligibility criteria and conditions for CAS promotion, requiring scrutiny by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee, and that the writ court's direction to promote from 2012 while the first respondent was on contract basis was contrary to the regulations. The first respondent contended that the UGC Regulations contemplate counting of ad-hoc, temporary, or contractual service for promotion, and that completion of four years of service made her eligible. The Court examined the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, dated 18.07.2018. Clause 10.0 of these regulations provides for counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotions under CAS. Clause 10.0(f) specifically states that previous ad-hoc, temporary, or contractual service shall be counted for direct recruitment and promotion, provided the incumbent fulfilled the prescribed conditions including essential qualifications, appointment through a duly constituted selection committee, and emoluments not less than regular salary. The Court noted that the question of counting such past services would arise only after the date of regular appointment, i.e., after 25.08.2014. The Court also reproduced the CAS eligibility criteria requiring completion of four years of service with a Ph.D. degree, attendance in orientation courses, completion of refresher or faculty development programmes, and publication of research papers. The Court emphasized that promotion under CAS is not a vested right and must be considered in the context of applicable rules and service records. The Court further observed that the eligibility and other criteria under the UGC Regulations are to be considered by the Competent Authority, and promotion is to be recommended by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee. The Court stated that courts cannot assume the role of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee and issue a direction to grant promotion, which would have a cascading effect on the prospects of other teachers. The Court also referred to Clause 6.0.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, which prescribes a transparent, objective, and credible selection procedure based on Academic Performance Indicators (API) and Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS). The available judgment text ends at paragraph 12, before the final operative order; therefore, the final disposal of the writ appeal is not recorded in the supplied excerpt. The preceding analysis indicates that the writ court's direct direction to promote from 2012 was legally untenable, but no final verdict can be stated from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Career Advancement Scheme - Promotion as a Vested Right - University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2018, Clause 10.0 and CAS criteria - Promotion under CAS cannot be claimed as a vested right of an employee; such right must be considered in the context of applicable rules and services rendered. The court examined the scope of issuing a direction to grant retrospective promotion on completion of four years of service. Held that the legal principles settled for grant of promotion or CAS are that promotion or CAS cannot be claimed as a vested right (Paras 5-8). B) Service Law - Counting of Past Contract Service - Clause 10.0(f) of UGC Regulations, 2018 - Previous ad-hoc, temporary, or contractual service shall be counted for direct recruitment and promotion, provided the essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than UGC prescribed qualifications, the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee, and the incumbent was drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Consideration of such past service arises only after the date of regular appointment, which in the present case was 25.08.2014. Held that past contract service from 2008 could not by itself entitle promotion from 2012 (Paras 6-8). C) Service Law - Role of Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee - UGC Regulations, 2018, CAS Promotion Criteria - Eligibility and other criteria contemplated under the UGC Regulations are to be considered by the Competent Authority and promotion is to be recommended by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee. Courts cannot assume the role of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee and issue a direction to grant promotion, which would have a cascading effect affecting the prospects of other teachers. Held that in the present case no clear endeavour had been made by the University and the case of the first respondent was not considered by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee (Paras 9-11). D) Service Law - Selection Procedure under UGC Regulations, 2010 - Clause 6.0.0 - Transparent, objective, and credible methodology of analysis of merits and credentials based on Academic Performance Indicators (API) and Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) applies to CAS promotions. The selection procedure shall incorporate weightages to performance in different relevant dimensions and follow the API based PBAS. Held that the selection procedure prescribed in Clause 6.0.0 must be followed for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ court was justified in directing grant of Career Advancement Scheme benefits from 2012 by counting contract service, despite UGC Regulations requiring eligibility determination by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee and whether CAS promotion is a vested right
Law Points
- Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme cannot be claimed as a vested right
- counting of previous ad-hoc
- temporary
- or contractual service is governed by UGC Regulations and arises only after regular appointment
- eligibility determination and recommendation are exclusively within the province of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee
- courts cannot assume the role of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee or direct retrospective promotion
