College professors promotion case full order JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.Nos.14422, 14423, 14424, 14425, 14426, 14428, 14429, 14430, 14432, 14433, 14434, 14438, 14439, 14436, 14437, 16316, 16320, 16321, 16318,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESEVED ON: 12.04.2022
DELIVERED ON: 27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.Nos.14422, 14423, 14424, 14425, 14426, 14428, 14429, 14430,
14432, 14433, 14434, 14438, 14439, 14436, 14437, 16316, 16320, 16321,
16318,
16319 of 2021 &
W.P.Nos.5950, 5957, 5959, 5954, 5956, 5973, 5976, 5977, 5978, 5975,
6601, 6602, 6603, 6605, 6606, 6608 and 6610 of 2022
W.P.No.14422 of 2021
Dr.P.Chandramohan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Vice-Chancellor,
Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District-608 002.
2.The Registrar,
Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 002. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.14422 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records with regard to the second respondent official memorandum No.C2/2021 dated 30.04.2021 and quashing the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to designate the petitioner as Professor with effect from 18.01.2015 and issue necessary orders confirming under CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEME of the
Respondents University pursuant to thd notification dated 08.08.2018 within a stipulated period.
For Petitioners
In all W.Ps. : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondents
In all W.Ps. : Mr.K.Sathishkumar
Standing Counsel for Annamalai University
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 30.04.2021, in and by which their claim for double promotion have been
rejected.
2. Facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:
2.1. The first respondent is a University constituted under a Special Act and the same is under the governance and administration of the State of Tamil Nadu, having its office at Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram-608 002. The petitioners are Doctorates in various disciplines, serving in the respondent University for many years, after their appointment being regularized. The respondents University invited applications under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for the post of Assistant Professor Stage-1 to Stage -2 (AGP 6000 to AGP 7000); Assistant Professor Stage-2 to Stage -3 (AGP 7000 to 8000), Assistant Professor Stage-3 to Associate Professor Stage-4 (AGP 8000 to 9000) and Associate Professor Stage -4 to Professor Stage-5 (AGP 9000 to AGP 10000) by Notification dated 08.08.2018, wherein eligible teachers were required to submit their application in order to avail their promotions
respectively.
2.2. The said notification invited applications from eligible teachers of all academics of the respondent University, except Medical and Dental Faculties. The petitioners, who are now working as Assistant Professors were eligible for promotion as Associate Professor and Professor simultaneously, as per the mandate and guidelines of the University Grants Commission [in short “UGC”]. Accordingly, the petitioners, who are Assistant Professors and holding necessary qualification and eligibility as notified under Career Advancement Scheme [in short “CAS”], had submitted separate application for promotion as Associate Professor and Professor respectively, as instructed under the Notification dated 08.08.2018 for Career Advancement Scheme.
2.3. The petitioners were called to appear before the Selection Committee for interview for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and
Professor simultaneously and was interviewed by the Selection Committee. The said evaluation was done for 83 teachers, who had been serving with necessary qualification in the Faculties of Arts, Science, Marine Sciences, Indian Languages, Education and Agriculture. After successful completion of evaluation of the credentials, which was conducted for both the post of Associate Professor and Professor simultaneously, the petitioners were permitted to attend the interview.
2.4. However, vide order issued by the first respondent University dated 29.05.2019, the petitioners were promoted as Associate Professors under CAS and conferred with monetary benefits, but no promotion as to the post of Professor had been granted, even though the petitioner had the necessary qualification and eligibility required by the respondent University under CAS and more particularly, in view of the fact that evaluation was conducted simultaneously for both Associate Professors and Professors.
2.5. According to UGC Notification dated 30.06.2010 under Clause
6.3.1, the said exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of application and the delay/ lapse on the part of the respondent cannot be attributed as a reason for denying promotion to the petitioners. On account of the above discrepancy, eligible teachers had made a common
representation to the Vice Chancellor and had further requested to provide promotional order for the post of Professor without any further delay and inspite of several representations submitted in this regard, the respondents University had failed to respond to their grievances.
2.6. Thereafter, the petitioners and others approached this Court seeking direction and this Court was pleased to issue necessary direction in a batch of writ petitions by order dated 18.01.2021 and thereby directed to dispose of the petitioners representation and others with regard to promotions for the post of Professor within a stipulated period of 90 days. Since the respondents failed to adhere to the orders of this Court, contempt proceedings were initiated and in response to the same, the respondent had issued the present impugned order dated 30.04.2021. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit stating as follows:
3.1. The petitioners were appointed by the erstwhile management on various dates without following the vacancy position and requirements. The respondent issued advertisement for CAS by letter No.AU/CAS/2018 dated 08.08.2018, inviting applications from eligible teachers and other academic staff of Annamalai University for promotion as and from Assistant Professor Stage I to Associate Professor Stage-5. All eligible staffs are invited to apply on or before 31.08.2018 and those who qualify as on 31.07.2018 and for any of the stages will be assessed with Academic performance Index in addition to the qualifications required for the movement from one stage to another stage as per UGC/AICTE guidelines.
3.2. The faculty members who have submitted their applications along with sufficient documents stipulated by UGC / AICTE for CAS promotion were scrutinized by the Screening cum Evaluation Committee comprising of the following members:
1.Vice-Chancellor – Chairperson
2. Dean of the Faculty concerned – Member
3. Head of the Department concerned – Member
4.Subject Expert (External) – Member
3.3. After scrutinizing the applications, those who have fulfilled the required conditions prescribed by UGC/AICTE for Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and Associate Professor to Professor were interviewed and were moved to next higher stage / promoted from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and Associate Professor to Professor respectively.
3.4. The Screening Committee was constituted and in the meeting held on 18.01.2019, it was decided that as per UGC/AICTE norms, faculty members need to serve minimum 3 years as Associate Professor to become eligible for promotion to Professor Post and hence, it was decided that one promotion may be given at a time and interview for two promotions simultaneously in the same Selection Committee is not a conventional one.
3.5. Though the Syndicate, who is the Apex Body, has passed Resolution No.21 dated 01.08.2018 deciding to give promotion to teaching staff working in Annamalai University under CAS, the Selection Committee is competent to decide whether two promotions to be given in one interview or not and accordingly, the Selection Committee uniformly decided on 18.01.2019 to give only one promotion and the same was approved by the Finance Committee dated 26.04.2019 and Syndicate Meeting dated 10.05.2019. Accordingly, the petitioners were given one promotion and they have accepted the same and however seeking for two promotions in a single interview was rightly rejected by the respondent.
4. Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions / contentions:
(i) The impugned order is in violation of UGC guidelines for promotions under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).
(ii) Promotion under CAS is designation conferred upon the teaching faculty, who achieves the requisite qualification and experience as envisaged in UGC Guidelines.
(iii) Delay on the part of the respondent University cannot be attributed as reason for denial of promotion to eligible candidates. The present notification for CAS is after a delayed period of 7 years, which caused backlog due in the CAS stage movements to eligible candidates.
(iv) Administrative Delay should not affect the eligible candidates to acquire their CAS Stage movements.
(v) The stand taken by the respondent University that the Selection Committee had taken decision on 18.01.2019 to conduct interview only for one promotion was without any instruction by the Syndicate, the registration and such decision could not have been taken by the Selection Committee and such an exercise, if at all taken was completely without any authority and the attempt of the respondent University to submit the decision of the Selection committee at this stage is totally attempt to cover up their lapse and the same is arbitrary and amount to colourable exercise of power.
(vi) The decision of interview of one promotion is a clear after thought and against the principle of fair and natural
justices.
(vii) The petitioners had achieved over and above the API score and PABS and therefore, they are entitled for promotions which has been delayed by the University. The petitioners are not only losing their career advancement but also unable to achieve higher administrative positions in Universities. The legitimate expectation of the petitioners has not been fulfilled by the University inspite of specific mandates by the UGC.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) State of Tripura and Others [(2004) 9 SCC 65]
(ii) Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another
[(2016) 1 SCC 454]
(iii) Union of India v. Puspa Rani & Others [(2008) 9 SCC
242]
5. Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
University has made the following contentions:
(i) On 18.01.2019, the Selection Committee headed by the Vice-Chancellor – Chairman of the Committee, Government Nominee, Governor / Chancellor Nominee decided to give only one promotion at a time and two promotions or simultaneous promotion in the same Selection Committee is not a conventional one. Therefore, the petitioners were given only one promotion i.e., Assistant Professor to Associate Professor even from Stage-1 directly to Stage-4.
(ii) The Selection Committee is the competent authority to give promotion to eligible candidates and also, they have a power to decide to give single promotion or double promotion. The petitioners not even served single day as an Associate Professor and hence, they cannot claim double promotion as a matter of right.
(iii) The Selection Committee has also gone through the
Academic Performance Indicators (API) as per Appendix III Table I of the UGC regulations for giving promotions, in which marks were awarded on five categories. A person, who not at all served as an Associate Professor and the marks assigned under five categories cannot be awarded, are not eligible for Professor post.
(iv) As per UGC Norms, a person who served as an Associate Professor with Pay Scale of (AGP) 9000 with 3 years of experience alone is eligible for Professor Post.
(v) The petitioners were given single promotion and having accepted the same and joined in the post, subsequently claiming double promotion is totally against Service Law, that too without participating in the interview for second promotion.
(vi) Reliance has been placed to a Full Bench decision of this Court dated 04.02.2022 in W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019 etc., batch wherein the Hon’ble Full Bench has affirmed the view that there is no scope for any deemed upgradation or deemed promotion to the next level rank and the next level can be granted / claimed only on the completion of qualifying service in each level.
(vii) As per Regulation 6.4.8. of the UGC Regulation on
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018, for promotion to the post of Professor, a person must serve as Associate Professor for 3 years in stage 4, possessing a Ph.D.
Degree in the relevant discipline mandatory, subject to API score and assessment by the Selection Committee. While that being so, the respondent University cannot go against Clause 6.4.8 of the UGC Regulations by giving double promotion to the petitioners by dispensing with their teaching experience of 3 years as Associate Professors.
The Standing Counsel for the respondents, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court dated 04.02.2022 made in W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019 [The State of Tamil Nadu v. C.Srinivasan].
6. This Court has considered the submissions made and also perused the entire materials placed before this Court.
7. The point of consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to get two stage / double promotion under CAS as per UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 ?
8. Clause 6 of the UGC Regulations 2010 deals with Selection Procedures and it is useful to refer to the following Clauses:
“6.3.I. A teacher who wishes to be considered for promotion under CAS must submit in writing to the university / college, with three months in advance to the due date, that he/she fulfills all qualifications under CAS and submit to the university / college the Performance Based Appraisal System proforma as evolved by the concerned university duly supported by all credentials as per the API guidelines set out in these Regulations. In order to avoid delays in holding Selection
Committee meetings in various positions under CAS, the University / College should immediately initiate the process of screening / selection, and shall complete the process within six months from the date of application. Further in order to avoid hardship, the candidates who fulfill all other criteria mentioned in these Regulations, as on and till the date on which these regulations are notified, can be considered for promotion from the date, on or after the date, on which they fulfill these eligibility conditions.
6.3.II. The Selection Committee specifications as contained in Clauses 5.1. to 5.4 shall be applicable to all direct recuitment of faculty position and equivalent cadres and Career Advancement promotions from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, from Associate Professor to Professor, Professor to Senior Professor in University and for equivalent cadres.
6.3.III. The CAS promotion from a lower stage to a higher stage of Assistant Professor shall be conducted through a “Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee” following the criteria laid down in Table I of Appendix II.
6.3.10. Candidates shall offer themselves for assessment for promotion, if they fulfill the minimum, API Sores indicated in the appropriate API system tables by submitting an application and the required PBAS proforma. They can do so three months before the due dates if they consider themselves eligible. Candidates who do not consider themselves eligible can also apply at a later date. In any event, the university concerned shall send a general circular twice a year calling for applications for CAS promotions from eligible candidates.”
9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners and other Associate Professors, who possess the necessary qualification and eligibility as notified under CAS had submitted separate application for promotion as Associate Professor and Professor respectively, as per the notification dated 08.08.2018 for CAS. The petitioners have relied upon the communication of the second respondent dated 14.01.2019 informing them to appear before the Selection Committee for interview for the movement of Professor & Associate Professor under CAS and based on the said communication, the petitioners seek two stage promotion from Assistant Professor to Professor because of the delay in considering the promotion.
10. It is the contention of the petitioners that as per UGC Regulations, CAS Promotion Board has to be convened once in six months by the respective Universities, whereas the respondents had lastly convened the meeting in the year 2011 and the delay on the part of the respondent University cannot be attributed as reason for denial of promotion to the eligible candidates. The petitioners have relied upon the promotion order issued by the second respondent dated 29.05.2015, in and by which it was informed that the petitioners are promoted from Assistant Professor (Stage 3 – AGP 8000) to Associate Professor (Stage 4 – AGP 9000) under CAS, based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee with effect from 18.01.2015 and the monetary benefit with effect from 01.06.2019.
According to the petitioners, they deemed to have reached the post of Associate Professor with effect from 18.01.2015 and as on 18.01.2018, they deemed to have gained 3 years experience in the cadre of Associate Professor and as such, they are eligible to be promoted as Professor under CAS as per the respondent notification dated 08.08.2018.
11. It is the stand of the second respondent in the counter affidavit that as per UGC /AICTE Norms, the Selection Committee was constituted to interview the eligible candidates and the 3 member Sub-Committee constituting Vice Chancellor (Chairman), Government Nominee and Chancellor’s Nominee, in the meeting held on 18.01.2019, has resolved that as per UGC /AICTE Norms, faculty members need to serve minimum 3 years as Associate Professor to become eligible for promotion to Professor Post and hence, it was decided that one promotion may be given at a time, and the said Committee also felt that interview for two promotions simultaneously in the same Selection Committee is not a conventional one.
12. It is also the stand of the respondents that though the Syndicate is the apex body to give promotion under CAS, the Selection Committee is competent to decide whether two promotions to be given in one interview or not and accordingly, the Selection Committee uniformly decided on 18.01.2019 to give only one promotion and the same was approved by the
Finance Committee meeting dated 26.04.2019 and Syndicate Meeting dated
10.05.2019. According to the respondents, the decision of the Selection
Committee by giving one promotion as per Regulations 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of the
UGC Regulations was taken with proper quorum and the Selection Committee has not conducted the interview for the post of Professor to the petitioners and without the interview, the prayer to give promotion to the post of Professor is not maintainable. It is also the stand of the second respondent in the additional counter affidavit that recommendation of the Screening cum Evaluation Committee will not bind on the Selection Committee to give promotion and the Selection Committee have a right to take independent decision and award marks to the candidates for giving promotion or not and the claim of the petitioners to give double promotion in a single interview, without having teaching experience of Associate Professor, is against UGC Regulations.
13. Further, as per UGC Regulations 6.3.2, candidates who do not fulfill the minimum score requirement under API scoring system proposed in the Regulation, as per Tables II (a and b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year.
14. The Government of Tamil Nadu Higher Educational Department has issued G.O.(D)No.153, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 25.06.2021 appointing Two Member Committee to conduct an enquiry with regard to any irregularity while implementing the promotion under CAS in Salem Periyar University, Madurai Kamarajar University and Annamalai University. The said Committee conducted the enquiry and they are about to file a report to the Government. The said Committee after conducting a detailed enquiry on 03.12.2021 in the respondents University and other staff members including the petitioners. As per 6.4.8. of the UGC Regulations, a Associate Professor completing 3 years of service in Stage 4 possessing as Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as a Professor and be placed in the higher cadre (Stage 5) subject to satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS Methodology provided in Table I – III of Appendix IV. According to the respondents, the petitioners did not possess 3 years teaching experience as Associate Professor for getting promoted as Professor.
15. Let this Court considers the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In State of Tirupur & Others v. K.K.Roy [(2004) 9 SCC 65], it was held that “State cannot escape from its constitutional obligations and take a stand that the employee accepted the offer of appointment knowing well that there was no avenue for promotion and in such cases, principle of estoppel, inapplicable”. In Madras Institute of Development Studies & Another v. K.Sivasubramaniyan & Others [(2016) 1 SCC 454] it was held that “where an aspirant takes part in selection process without any demur, he cannot question it later”. In Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Others [(2008) 9 SCC 242] it was held that
“matters relating to creation / abolition of posts, formation / restructuring of cadres, sources / mode of recruitment, prescription of qualifications, selection criteria, evaluation of service records, are matters which fall in employer’s domain. Judicial Review comes into play only if State Action is contrary to constitutional or statutory provisions, or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides”.
16. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, the question is not with regard to denial of promotion, but with regard to grant of two stage-promotion. Further in the case on hand, there is no explicit provision under the State or Regulation for grant of two stage promotion and as such it cannot be said to be contrary to constitutional or statutory provisions.
17. The Full Bench decision of this Court dated 04.02.2022 made in W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019 [The State of Tamil Nadu v. C.Srinivasan] relied on by the learned standing counsel for the respondents lay down the proposition that “there is no deemed upgradation or deemed promotion contemplated in the relevant Government Orders and the benefit of upgradation / promotion to the next level can be granted / claimed only on completion of the qualifying service in each level / rank as prescribed in the relevant Government Orders.” In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, unless the petitioner acquire minimum qualifying service of 3 years as Associate Professor, he cannot claim promotion as Professor.
18. In the absence of specific regulation under UGC or Annamalai University, the claim of the petitioner for two stage / double promotion cannot be legally sustainable. The petitioners also cannot seek the benefit of Doctrine of Estoppel or Doctrine of Acquiescence, based on the evaluation of the Screening / Selection Committee informing the petitioners to appear for the selection process / interview for promotion under CAS. The petitioners have not produced any materials to substantiate that they have got three years teaching experience as Associate Professor or any Statutory regulations of UGC or Annamalai University in order to claim simultaneous promotion in the same selection / interview as Professor. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that in the absence of any specific provision under UGC regulations, the claim of the petitioners, seeking two stage promotion / double promotion under CAS cannot be considered.
19. In the light of the aforesaid facts and discussions, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Official Memorandum No.C2/2021 dated 30.04.2021
and finds no merit in these writ petitions.
20. These Writ Petitions stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
27.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To
1.The Vice-Chancellor,
Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District-608 002.
2.The Registrar,
Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 002.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
Jvm
Common Order in
W.P.Nos.14422 of 2021 etc., batch
27.04.2022