M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the action of respondents in denying benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (for short "CAS") For convenience, the facts of the case of Dr. Mool Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 647/2011 are discussed in this judgment.
(2.) IT is stated that University Grants Commission (for short "the UGC") framed a Scheme for Career Advancement of Lecturers working in the University. It was to remove stagnation, thereby promotion was provided by introducing Career Advancement Scheme (for short "CAS"). The Scheme originally framed underwent changes from time to time and it was finally superseded by the University Grants Commission (minimum qualification required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000. The Regulations provides benefit of career advancement in the senior scale and selection scale by giving designation of Associate Professor and Professor. As per Regulations, one is required to possess eight years' of service as Reader (Associate Professor) along with various academic work and contribution to become eligible for promotion. The Clause 2.8 provides that if number of years required in the Feeder Cadre are less than stipulated, then to remove hardship of those who have complete more than total number of years in their entire service for eligibility in the cadre, may also be placed in the next higher cadre after adjusting the total number of years. The University amended Ordinance 317(B) to implement Regulations of 2000 and for that purposes. Notification was issued on 07.09.2001. The respondent -University, however, failed to implement CAS at the level of Assistant Professor and at the same time, proposed amendment in the Ordinance 317 (B) to make it effective since 01.03.2002. The respondent initiated process for promotion to the post of Professor and Associate Professor vide order dt. 07.04.2010. The UGC in the meanwhile amended their Regulations on 18.09.2010. The amended provisions were to the effect that if a candidate become eligible for promotion in terms of Regulations on or after 31.12.2008, promotion of such candidate shall be governed by the amended regulations. The petitioners submitted their candidature for promotion through proper channel. The respondents thereafter notified dates of interview and in the meanwhile, meeting of Academic Council took place on 08.01.2011 to consider proposed draft for amendment in the Ordinance 317(B) in connection with qualification for promotion under CAS. The proposed Ordinance was made applicable for those, who become eligible on or after 31.12.2008. The petitioners were assured for consideration of candidature after taking total length of service but they were shocked to receive a letter dt. 16.01.2011 informing about deficiencies in their candidature. The aforesaid seems to be pursuant to the proposed amendment in Ordinance otherwise petitioners had completed their required length of service. This Court passed an interim order, accordingly petitioners appeared in the interview. On completion of interview, it was found that as many as 42 candidates have been promoted based on their entire length of service though they had not completed eight years' of service as Reader, thereby respondents made discrimination between similarly situated persons. If a candidate lacking in eight years' of service as Reader can be held qualified for CAS then respondents were expected to give similar treatment to others including petitioners. The prayer is accordingly to treat the petitioners as qualified by considering their total length of service. So far as other issues pertaining to disqualification are concerned, that are not required to be addressed now, as candidature of the petitioners has already been considered, thus it would be adjudged as per CAS. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that petitioner, namely, Mool Singh Rathore was initially appointed on the post of Assistant. Professor. He was promoted to the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 19.05.2001 under Career Advancement Scheme, thus next promotion under said Scheme would be available to him but strictly as per the Regulations framed by the UGC and amended Ordinance of University. The UGC issued a letter dt. 21.02.2002 informing modification in the process for promotion of Associate Professor to the post of Professor under the Scheme, It was made applicable w.e.f. 01.03.2002 and direction was also issued for its adherence. As per the aforesaid letter, eight years' experience was required on the post of Reader apart from other conditions. The UGC subsequently issued another letter on 08.07.2003 informing all the Vice Chancellors that research publication for promotion to the post of Professor should be of the period of Associate Professor. Thus, prior publications were not to be considered. The UGC thereafter amended its Regulations of the year 2010, accordingly the University took a decision to amend its Ordinance and thereupon issued a Notification on 13.02.2011. The Ordinance now notified after amendment is to be made applicable for those, who become eligible for promotion after 01.03.2002. Even otherwise amended Regulations notified by the UGC is made applicable for promotion on or after 31.12.2008, thus those candidates, who become eligible for promotion on or after 31.12.2008 were required to be governed by the amended Regulations of 2010. The petitioners were accordingly conveyed deficiencies in their candidature. The University has further proposed an amendment in the Ordinance, however, assent of Chancellor has not been received as yet. In any case, the respondents will give promotion to all the eligible candidates by one and the same criteria. This is taking note of allegation that 42 candidates have been given promotion though lacking in length of service. The petitioners have pressed main controversy regarding their eligibility in terms of length of service, as other issues have not been pressed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.;