top of page

Promotion Of A Teacher To Be Considered From The Date Of His Entry Of Services And Not Before: SC

Promotion Of A Teacher To Be Considered Only From The Date Of His Entry Of Services And Not Before - SC.



Registrar Karnataka University & Anr. v. Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr.

Civil Appeal No. 4079 Of 2020 (Arising Out Of S.L.P.(C) No. 8088 Of 2020)

17th December, 2020.


Counsel for Appellants: Sri Kirit Javali.

Counsel for Respondents: Sri Siddarath Bhatnagar.


The Hon'ble Supreme Court Justices Ashok Bhushan, R.Subhash Reddy And M.R.Shah in an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal stating that that the incumbent teacher, who is entitled for promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into the University.


This appeal was filed by the Karnataka University, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in which it had dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants herein, calling in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and declaring that the effective date of “Career Advancement Scheme” promotion of the first respondent was 01.01.2009 and also directed to grant all consequential benefits to him, as flow from such fixation. The CAS promotion was already given to the first respondent and pay fixation has already been made, but it was from the date of 28.10.2013. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, by recording a finding that the writ petitioner completed three years of teaching by 01.01.2009, as such effective date should have been 01.01.2009 and was of the view that his service in affiliated College is also to be considered for the purpose of promotion under CAS and consequently writ petitioner was entitled for promotion from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.


It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that prior to joining the appellant University, respondent No.1 was working as Associate Professor from 2006 to 2013(with an affiliated College) and thereafter, he joined the University as Assistant Professor. It was submitted that at the time of recruitment, respondent No.1 did not apply for the post of Professor, as he was well aware that he was not eligible for the same. It was submitted that the effective date of promotion of respondent No.1, for the post of Professor, cannot be from any date prior to 28.10.2013, as at that point of time, he was admittedly not in the employment of University. It was further submitted that the benefit of Clause 17 of the Statute was duly given to respondent No.1, and his previous service was considered for promotion, but as he was not in the effective service of the University, the University has rightly given the effective date from 28.10.2013. It was submitted that as per the statute framed by the University, the incumbent teacher was required to be on the rolls of the ‘constituent College’ only and not ‘affiliated College’.


The counsel for respondents submitted that the term “principals of Constituent Colleges”, ought to be read disjunctively, as against the other posts, mentioned in the provision, since it appears only qua a category of principals and not other posts. By referring to the definition under Section 2(2) of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, it was submitted that term “College” includes ‘Constituent College’ as well as ‘affiliated College’. It was further submitted that as the High Court has correctly interpreted the relevant statute and has recorded a finding that the effective date of promotion should have been 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.


The court observed that a harmonious reading of Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute with the Preamble thereof, makes it clear that the term “College” used in the said statute is referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated College. There cannot be any promotion in the University for the period where the writ petitioner was not in effective service of the University. The University is not expected to order promotion for the period when he was working in affiliated college.

"Further, the High Court has fell in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word “colleges”, by extending to “affiliated college”. Even the Division Bench has also committed the same error by recording a finding that a magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings University/Colleges, as used in the paragraph/clause 12.7 of the Statute. The University has correctly interpreted the various clauses of the Statute and by giving the benefit of past service, has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry into the service of the University." (Para 16)


At the time of appointment itself, though the writ petitioner has completed three years of service, fully knowing that he was not eligible for appointment as a Professor, he has not claimed the post of Professor. Even the representations filed by the writ petitioner indicate that he claimed notional service, in spite of the same, the High Court, by misconstruing the statute contrary to its objectives, as mentioned in the preamble liberally construed, going beyond the scope of the statute and granted all consequential benefits, by declaring that the effective date for promotion was to be 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.


The court hence held that the incumbent teacher, who is entitled for promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into the University. Though the earlier service is to be counted for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion, but effective date for all purposes is only from the date of entry of first respondent into the University service, i.e. 28.10.2013. Hence, the appeal stands allowed.



M. Maheswari

Comments


Articles