- (1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction directing the respondents to treat him on the post of Professor, Department of Kayachikitsa, under the Career Advancement Scheme of the University Grant Commission (UGC) with effect from 27.07.1998 with all pecuniary benefits. It is also further prayed for quashing and setting aside the decision reflected in the office order dated 13.12.2005 by the Registrar of respondent No. 1 University in so far as it refuses to change the promotion of petitioner to the post of professor, Kayachikitsa.
(2.) The brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner holds the qualification of BAMS. MSAM and he is also holder of Ph.D degree in Kayachikitsa. He joined the respondent University as lecturer in 1980 and became Reader in the year 1984. In order to become eligible to the post of Professor, eight years services as a Reader is required and the research contributions in the field are also taken into account. Accordingly, the petitioner become eligible for being appointed to the post of Professor, Kayachikitsa in the year 1992. 2.1 The petitioner submits that the appointments in the Post of Graduate Departments are ordinarily done by direct recruitment only. However, in order to see that the eligible inservice members are not stagnated and are not deprived of chances to hold the promotional post, the University Grants Commission mooted a Career Advancement Scheme in the year 1998. The same was conceived and floated for the benefit of the employees of the University in the teaching staff who were eligible but stagnated on a post. It was inter alia provided in the said Scheme that the appointment by promotion to the post of Professor shall be made by the Staff Selection Commission of the University under the regular procedure of law. The idea was only to screen the candidate who were eligible for the post of promotion, but some how kept away from the promotional avenue and accordingly intended to be covered under the UGC Scheme. It appears that the powers for appointment were delegated to the ViceChancellor, respondent no. 2 herein under Section 20 (xx) of the Gujarat Ayurved University Act, 1965, which otherwise is to be exercised by the Syndicate. 2.2. Petitioner states that for the purpose of selecting the eligible petitioner to the post of Professor under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme, the Staff Selection Committee of the Department conducted interview the petitioner on 30.09.2000. However, to the surprise of the petitioner by letter dated 03.10.2000 from the then acting Registrar, the petitioner was informed that his case would be recommended only after six months. No reasons in the letter were assigned. There was nothing adverse qua the eligibility of the petitioner. While in the aforesaid letter dated 03.10.2000 it was stated that the case of the petitioner for promotion under the Scheme would be taken up only after six months, well before six months and almost immediately, in a meeting of the Staff Selection Committee held on 22.11.2000, the petitioner was recommended.
(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the office order dated 23.11.2000, the petitioner was promoted as Professor in Kayachikitsa Department in the pay-scale of Rs.16400-22400. Subsequently, by the order dated 11.11.2002 the petitioner has been promoted to the said post effect from 23.11.2000. It is submitted that promotion order dated 23.11.2000 was subject to the rules and regulations of the University. He has submitted that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and accordingly remained present before the said Committee. He has submitted that the Career Advancement Scheme is given with effect from 27.07.1998 as reflected in the letter dated 17.03.2005, and the petitioner is entitled to the promotion from the said date. He has invited attention of this Court about the UGC guidelines more particularly, regulation 7.5.0., which pertains to the promotion of Professor. He has submitted that the petitioner has addressed various letters to the respondent on 21.09.2005 and on 12.11.2005 to the Vice-Chancellors, reminders to the Registry on 26.11.2005 but no response was given to the same. He has submitted that the petitioner had filed an Appeal before the Vice Chancellor of Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar on 03.01.2006, which was subsequently rejected on 02.01.2007. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further contended that because of the such action of the respondent University, the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced and the same would give rise to the cause of action every month. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shah has requested to allow the writ petition.;