Y S PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY Vs. RAJ KUMAR THAKUR
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 17,1990

Y.S.PARMAR Appellant
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR THAKUR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RAMNIKLAL G GOHIL VS. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AMRELI [LAWS(GJH)-1993-6-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Verma, J. - (1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)Respondent, Raj Kumar Thakur, was a student in the Post-graduate Doctoral Programme as a Ph.D. scholar with his subject for doctoral study "Breeding of Honey Bees-A-Mellifera for Honey production through Artificial Insemination" which is a subject under the Department of Agriculture of Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and is a course of study available in several other institutions in the country. The respondent was registered for this course in 1985 and was required to complete the same in six semesters with entitlement for extension by the more semesters by the Dean on the recommendation of the Adviser and for a further extension of two by the Vice-Chancellor of the more semesters Horticulture Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry on the recommendation of the Dean. The respondent completed seven semesters as a student and registered for the eighth semester on 24-7-1989 as a student of the University. However, during this period respondent was appointed as Assisiant Scientist in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 vide letter of appointment dated 26-7-1989. The Dean by order dated 27-7-1989 permitted the respondent to register for the eighth semester. This permission of the Dean was granted without the knowledge of the respondent having become an employee of the University as a result of the appointment letter dated 26-7-1989. The respondent joined the post of Assistant Scientist pursuant to this appointment on 29-7-1989. The respondent thereafter applied for a further extension of his registration for the course for the ninth semester. The Vice-Chancellor vide his order dated 22-11-1989 refused the permission on the ground that the respondent having become an employee of the University was not entitled to that benefit in accordance with the provisions applicable. The restrictions in regard to an employee/teacher of the University for this purpose are as under:
"(a) An employee teacher of the University is permitted to undertake, doctoral programme only in subjects for which facilities in other Universities in the country are not available. Forestry being one such subject in the petitioner University. The course of study of the respondent viz. Agriculture, is however, available in numerous other institutions and Universities in the country.

(b) An employee/teacher is required to take study leave and the same is admissible for pursuing approved courses outside the University only. It is only in cases where facilities for the course of study which is not available elsewhere in the country, an inservice teacher is permited to undertake the same in the petitioner University.

(c) Study leave is not granted as a matter of right and can be granted only after the employee/ teacher has completed five years of continuous service in the University.

(d) Considering the number of employees aspiring to do doctoral programme the permission to do the same is given according to seniority."

(3.)An employee of the University would be required to complete the Ph.D. within eight years of recruitment failing which increments are not admissible till completion of the course. An employee who is Assistant Professor or holds an equivalent post, the respondent being in that category, normally becomes entitled to the senior scale. of Rs. 3000-5000 after completion of eight years of service. However, in case of an employee obtaining the Ph.D. degree the senior scale becomes applicable after five years instead of eight years. On completion of eight years in the senior scale and employee/teacher is promoted to the next higher rank of reader. Thus, a person getting a Ph. D. degree gets the senior scale earlier and consequently he is also promoted earlier to the post of reader. There are 24 other employees who are senior to the respondent and are awaiting completion of thier five years service for doing the doctoral programme and there are eight other employees who joined initially with the Ph.D. degree and are awaiting completion of five years for getting the senior scale. The consequence of granting permission to the respondent for registration to the ninth semester would be to confer on the respondent the benefit which is not available to an employee of the University because of the aforesaid restrictions and this would result in giving a benefit to the respondent contrary to the provisions applicable while denying the same to others who are senior to the respondent in employment. According to the appellants this was the reason for refusal by the Vice-Chancellor of the permission sought by the respondent.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.