Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1420 (HP)

Om Parkash Rahi v. Union of India

2018-07-31

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since common questions of law and facts arises for consideration in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2 The petitioners in CWP Nos. 413, 414, 415 and 416/2018 have prayed for the following substantive reliefs: 1. That communication dated 12.2.2018 (Annexure P-24) may be quashed and set aside; 2. That the communication dated 15.6.2016 (Annexure P-13), report dated 6.12.2016 (Annexure P-14), resolution of respondent No.3 item No. 12 of meeting held on 13.12.2016 under new item (Annexure P-15) may also be quashed and set aside; 3. That the respondents No. 2 and 3 may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner's for mapping in AGP of Rs.9500/- in accordance with rules and grant consequential benefits from due date; 4. That respondents No. 1 to 3 may be restrained from withdrawing promotional/placement benefits given to the petitioner(s) up to the post of Associate Professor in implementation of communication dated 12.2.2018 issued by respondent No.1 and petitioner(s) may be held entitled to all benefits as he was drawing at present and to which the petitioner(s) would be entitled in future as per rules; 5. That the petitioner(s) may be directed to be considered to the post of Professor in consequence to his application submitted in reference to Advertisement No. 06/2017 (Annexure P-29) and consequently the recommendations in favour of the petitioner(s) may be implemented from due date with all consequential benefits; 6. That the Officiating Director may be restrained from taking any material decision affecting interests of the teaching faculty and should confine only to routine matters as directed by respondent No.1 vide communication dated 29.8.2016 (Annexure P-31). 3. The petitioner's in CWP No. 515/2018 have prayed for the following substantive reliefs: 1. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned communication dated 12.2.2018, Annexure P-17; 2. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant due and admissible benefits of 7th Central Pay Commission in favour of the petitioner's along with consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 4. For the sake of convenience and in order to maintain clarity, facts of CWP No. 413/2018 are being referred to. 5. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant due and admissible benefits of 7th Central Pay Commission in favour of the petitioner's along with consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 4. For the sake of convenience and in order to maintain clarity, facts of CWP No. 413/2018 are being referred to. 5. Even though, various averments have been made in the writ petition, however, long and short of the matter is that the petitioner's was offered appointment as Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Electrical Engineering Department, NIT, Hamirpur, the then Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur on 28.6.2000 (Annexure P-1) and he joined the Institute on 25.7.2000. On the recommendations of Staff Selection Committee, the petitioner's was designated as Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-15200 with the approval of Board of Governors w.e.f 25.7.2005 vide letter dated 31.12.2005 (Annexure P-2). Purusant to the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission notified vide letter No. F. No. 23-1/2008-TS.II, dated 18.8.2009 (Annexure P-5) and letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner(s) was placed as Assistant Professor in AGP of Rs.6000/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and granted AGP of Rs.7000/- w.e.f. 1.7.2006 vide pay fixation order No. NIT/HMR/Admn./Pay Revision- 270/2009/342-57 dated 20.1.2010 (Annexure P-6). The Institute had conducted the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) interviews as one time measure for the eligible faculty members on 5/6. 6.2013 at IIT Delhi and the petitioner's was placed in the AGP of Rs.8000/- w.e.f. 1.7.2011 vide office order No.NIT/HMR/Admn./Rev-270/Vol.-17/2013/6967-77, dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure R-1). On the representation, dated 29.9.2014 (Annexure R-2), made by the petitioner's, the Institute placed him in PB-IV in AGP of Rs. 9000/- in light of Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) letter dated 31.12.2008. The petitioner's was given advantage of re-designation to the post of Associate Professor in AGP of Rs.9000/- from 25.7.2013 subject to verification by Audit Department and subsequent direction if any received from the MHRD in this regard and the MHRD issued its letter dated 12.2.2018 to clarify the matter by setting aside the re-designation of the petitioner's to the post of Associate Professor as the same, according to it, was not in order. 6. It is the case of respondent No.2 that it received numerous representations of faculty/non-faculty staff (verbal/written) with regard to their issues relating to anomalies in promotion/placement/up-gradation/movement/ pay fixation and MACPs etc. 6. It is the case of respondent No.2 that it received numerous representations of faculty/non-faculty staff (verbal/written) with regard to their issues relating to anomalies in promotion/placement/up-gradation/movement/ pay fixation and MACPs etc. and accordingly, the officiating Director constituted a committee to look into the matter. 7. It is the powers of the officiating Director that have been questioned in these petitions and it is claimed that all further actions after constitution of the committee be it final recommendations of the Committee (Annexure P-14) or thereafter the decision taken by the Board of Governors in its 31st meeting held on 13.12.2016 are liable to be quashed and set aside as it is more than settled that in casevery foundation on which an edifice built collapses along with it falls the entire edifice. 8. As regards respondents No. 2 to 4, they have tried to justify their action by referring to certain clarifications/directions of respondent No.1, however further question is as to whether the MHRD itself had the authority to issue letters/instructions as have been relied upon by respondents No. 2 to 4 in support of their case, which too have been assailed on the ground of its competence. 9. As regards respondent No.1, it has justified its action by stating that the committee constituted by the officiating Director had examined the cases of six faculty members of the Institute, i.e. the petitioner(s) and the similarly situated persons and the benefit extended to them being not in order and contrary to the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 from time to time, after examining the report of the anomaly committee, the MHRD vide its letter dated 12.2.2018(Annexure P-24), had conveyed its observations that the CAS promotions given to the six faculty members including the petitioner(s) were not in order and advised respondent No.2 to recover the excess amount that had been paid due to wrong pay fixation. 10. As observed earlier, one of the moot questions is also as to whether the officiating Director of respondent No.2 had at the first place authority to constitute the committee and in case he did not have the authority, then concededly the recommendations made by the said committee are of no consequence. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully. 12. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully. 12. At the outset, it may be observed that initially, the institute of respondent No.2 was one of the Regional Engineering Colleges, which was converted into National Institute of Technology and the status of a deemed University was accorded to it in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of U.G.C. Act by the Central Government on the advice of U.G.C. with cent-percent Central Government funding w.e.f. financial year 2003-04. The institute in question thereafter was brought within the scope and ambit of National Institute of Technology Act, 2007(in short, the NIT Act, 2007). 13. However, before we advert to the merits of the case, certain provisions of the NIT Act, 2007 as amended from time to time, need to be noticed. 14. The object and reasons of the NIT Act, 2007 are as under:- “An Act to declare certain institutions of technology to be Institutions of national importance and to provide for instructions and research in branches of engineering, technology, management, education, sciences and arts and for the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge in such branches and for certain other matters connected with such institutions.” 15. Sections 3(g), 6(i), 9 10, 11, 13, 17(1) and (2), 19, 24, 25(g), 26, 27, 30, 32, 36 and Schedule entry No.5 of the NIT Act, 2007 are as under:- 3. Definitions: (a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) "Institute" means any of the Institutions mentioned in column (3) of the Schedule; (h) to (n) xxx xxx xxx 6. Power of Institutes :- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Institute shall exercise the following powers and perform the following duties, namely:-- (a) to (h) xxx xxx xxx (i) to frame Statutes and Ordinances and to alter, modify or rescind the same; (j) to (o) xxx xxx xxx 9. Visitor :- (1) The President of India shall be the Visitor of every Institute. (2) The Visitor may appoint one or more persons to review the work and progress of any Institute and to hold inquiries into the affairs thereof and to report thereon in such manner as the Visitor may direct. (3) Upon receipt of any such report, the Visitor may take such action and issue such directions as he considers necessary in. (2) The Visitor may appoint one or more persons to review the work and progress of any Institute and to hold inquiries into the affairs thereof and to report thereon in such manner as the Visitor may direct. (3) Upon receipt of any such report, the Visitor may take such action and issue such directions as he considers necessary in. respect of any of the matters dealt with in the report and the Institute shall be bound to comply with such directions within reasonable time. 10. Authorities of Institutes :- The following shall be the authorities of an Institute, namely:-- (a) a Board of Governors; (b) a Senate; and (c) such other authorities as may be declared by the Statutes to be the authorities of the Institute. 11. Board of Governors :- The Board of every Institute shall consist of the following members, namely:-- (a) the Chairperson to be nominated by the Visitor; (b) the Director, ex officio; (c) two persons not below the rank of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India to be nominated by the Central Government from amongst persons dealing with technical education and finance; (d) two persons to be nominated by the Government of the State in which the Institute is situated, from amongst persons, who, in the opinion of that Government, are technologists or industrialists of repute; (e) two persons, at least one of whom shall be a woman, having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of education, engineering or science to be nominated by the Council; and (f) one professor and one assistant professor or a lecturer of the Institute to be nominated by the Senate. 13. Power and functions of Board :- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board of every Institute shall be responsible for the general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Institute and shall exercise all the powers of the Institute not otherwise provided for by this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, and shall have the power to review the acts of the Senate. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Board of every Institute shall,--(a) take decisions on questions of policy relating to the administration and working of the Institute; (b) institute courses of study at the Institute; (c) make Statutes; (d) institute and appoint persons to academic as well as other posts in the Institute; (e) consider and modify or cancel Ordinances; (f) consider and pass resolutions on the annual report, the annual accounts and the budget estimates of the Institute for the next financial year as it thinks fit and submit them to the Council together with a statement of its development plans; (g) exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by this Act or the Statutes; (3) The Board shall have the power to appoint such committees, as it considers necessary for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties under this Act. 17. Director and Deputy Director :- (1) The Director and Deputy Director of an Institute shall be appointed by the Visitor, on such terms and conditions of service and on the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted by him in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Statutes. (2) The Director shall be the principal academic and executive officer of the Institute and shall be responsible for the proper administration of the Institute and for the imparting of instruction and maintenance of discipline therein. (3) to (5) xxx xxx xxx 19. Other authorities and officers :- The powers and duties of authorities and officers other than those mentioned above shall be determined by the Statutes. 24. Appointments :- All appointments of the staff of every Institute, except that of the Director and Deputy Director, shall be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Statutes, by-- (a) the Board, if the appointment is made on the academic staff in the post of Lecturer or above or if the appointment is made on the non-academic staff in any cadre the maximum of the pay scale for which exceeds rupees ten thousand five hundred; (b) the Director, in any other case. 25. 25. Statutes :- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-- (a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) the classification, the method of appointment and the determination of the terms and conditions of service of teachers and other staff of the Institute; (h) to (n) xxx xxx xxx 26. Statutes how made :- (1) The first Statutes of each Institute shall be framed by the Central Government with the prior approval of the Visitor and a copy of the same shall be laid as soon as may be before each House of Parliament. (2) The Board may, from time to time, make new or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes in the manner provided in this section. (3) Every new Statute or addition to the Statutes or any amendment or repeal of Statutes shall require the previous approval of the Visitor who may grant assent or withhold assent or remit it to the Board for consideration. (4) A new Statute or a Statute amending or repealing an existing Statute shall have no validity unless it has been assented to by the Visitor. 27. Ordinances :- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances of every Institute may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-- (a) the admission of the students to the Institute; (b) the courses of study to be laid down for all degrees and diplomas of the Institute; (c) the conditions under which students shall be admitted to the degree or diploma courses and to the examinations of the Institute, and shall be eligible for degrees and diplomas; (d) the conditions of award of the fellowships, scholarships, exhibitions, medals and prizes; (e) the conditions and mode of appointment and duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators; (f) the conduct of examinations; (g) the maintenance of discipline among the students of the Institute; and (h) any other matter which by this Act or the Statutes is to be or may be provided for by the Ordinances. 30. Establishment of Council :- (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, there shall be established for all the Institutes specified in column (3) of the Schedule, a central body to be called the Council. 30. Establishment of Council :- (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, there shall be established for all the Institutes specified in column (3) of the Schedule, a central body to be called the Council. (2) The Council shall consist of the following members, namely:-- (a) the Minister in charge of the Ministry or Department of the Central Government having administrative control of the technical education, ex officio, as Chairman; (b) the Secretary to the Government of India in charge of the Ministry or Department of the Central Government having administrative control of the technical education, ex officio, as Vice-Chairman; (c) the Chairperson of every Board, ex officio; (d) the Director of every Institute, ex officio; (e) the Chairman, University Grants Commission, ex officio; (f) the Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, ex officio; (g) four Secretaries to the Government of India, to represent the Ministries or Departments of the Central Government dealing with biotechnology, atomic energy, information technology and space, ex officio; (h) the Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, ex officio; (i) not less than three, but not more than five persons to be nominated by the Visitor, at least one of whom shall be a woman, having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of education, industry, science or technology; (j) three members of Parliament, of whom two shall be chosen by the House of the People and one by the Council of States: Provided that the office of member of the Council shall not disqualify its holder for being chosen as or for being, a member of either House of Parliament; (k) two Secretaries to the State Government, from amongst the Ministries or Departments of that Government dealing with technical education where the Institutes are located, ex officio; (l) Financial Advisor, dealing with the Human Resource Development Ministry or Department of the Central Government, ex officio; (m) one officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry or Department of Central Government having administrative control of the Technical Education, ex officio, as Member- Secretary. 32. Function of Council :- (1) It shall be the general duty of the Council to co-ordinate the activities of all the Institutes. 32. Function of Council :- (1) It shall be the general duty of the Council to co-ordinate the activities of all the Institutes. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Council shall perform the following functions, namely:-- (a) to advise on matters relating to the duration of the courses, the degrees and other academic distinctions to be conferred by the Institutes, admission standards and other academic matters; (b) to lay down policy regarding cadres, methods of recruitment and conditions of service of employees, institution of scholarships and freeships, levying of fees and other matters of common interest; (c) to examine the development plans of each Institute and to approve such of them as are considered necessary and also to indicate broadly the financial implications of such approved plans; (d) to advise the Visitor, if so required, in respect of any function to be performed by him under this Act; and (e) to perform such other functions as are assigned to it by or under this Act. 36. Power to remove difficulties :- (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty: Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date on which this Act receives the assent of the President. (2) Every order made under this section shall, as soon-as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament. The schedule List of Central Institutions Incorporated into the NIT Act, 2007 1. to 4. xxx xxx xxx 5. National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur Society. 6. to 20. xxx xxx xxx 16. Though, an amendment was carried out in the NIT Act, 2007, on 7.6.2012, called as the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act, 2012, (No. 28 of 2012) however, no significant change, as is relevant for the adjudication of these petitions was made, therefore, no reference qua the said amendment is necessary. Similar is the situation with regard to the amendment carried out in the NIT Act, 2007 on 4.3.2014 called as the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research (Amendment) Act, 2014 (No.9 of 2014). 17. Similar is the situation with regard to the amendment carried out in the NIT Act, 2007 on 4.3.2014 called as the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research (Amendment) Act, 2014 (No.9 of 2014). 17. Adverting to the statutes for all National Institutes of Technology, the following are some of the provisions, which need to be noticed: 2. Definitions:- (b). “Authorities”, “Officers” and “Faculty Members” in relation to an Institute mean, respectively, the authorities, officers and faculty members of the Institute. 3. Authorities:- The following shall be the authorities of the Institute, namely:- i. the Board of Governors as constituted under Section 11 of the Act; ii. the Senate as constituted under Section 14 of the Act; iii. the Finance Committee as constituted under First Statute 10; and iv. the Building and Works Committee as constituted under First Statute No. 17. The Directors and his Powers (7). The Director, where he is the appointing authority, shall have the power to fix, on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the initial pay of an incumbent at a stage higher’ than the minimum, of the scale, but riot involving more than five increments, in respect of posts to which appointment can be made by him under the powers vested in him by the provision of the Act or these statutes. (14) The Director may, at his discretion constitute such committees, as he may consider appropriate for smooth functioning of the Institute. 23. Appointments (5) Selection Committees for filling up of posts under the Institute (other than on contract basis) by advertisement or by promotion from amongst the members of staff of the Institute shall be constituted in the following manner, namely: (a) The Selection Committee for recruitment of Academic Staff (excluding the Director and the Deputy Director), or for promotion shall be as under: (1) Director of Deputy Director - Chairman (2) Visitor’s nominee -Member (3) Two nominees of the Board one being an expert, but other than a member of the Board -Member (4) One expert nominee of Senate from outside the Institute. -Member (5) Head of Department concerned (for other than the post of Professor) 18. -Member (5) Head of Department concerned (for other than the post of Professor) 18. Noticeably, even though the first statute was amended vide notification dated 21.7.2017, called as the First Statute of National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2017, however, no significant change, as is relevant for the adjudication of these petitions was made, therefore, is not required to be referred to. 19. Adverting to the facts, there is no dispute that the petitioner(s) joined respondent No.2 after being selected by a duly constituted selection committee as Lecturer, which nomenclature was in existence at the relevant point of time. Such selection was made after following Rules, which were based on the norms and guidelines of the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission (UGC). It was only after enactment of the NIT Act, 2007 and framing of 1st Statute in the year 2009 that a provision was incorporated in Statue 23 that the teaching staff would be governed by the Rules applicable to the employees of Central Government. Thus, the necessary inference is that whatever Rule of appointment or promotion was being followed by respective NITs/RECs, was the one applicable to the staff of NIT till such time the NIT has framed its own Rules. The petitioner(s) had been applied such existing Rules and had been granted promotion/placement from time to time under these norms and Rules. 20. That apart, it would be noticed from the scheme of the NIT Act, 2007 that the authorities thereunder are identified and their powers and jurisdiction have also been specifically spelt out. Noticeably, no power is given to the MHRD as such to issue instructions or guidelines dehors the power given to the it under the scheme of the NIT Act, 2007. 21. After respondent No.2 had declared the Rules to be applied for the purpose of promotion/placement/fitment in new scales, grant of AGP etc., the selection committee as constituted under the scheme of the NIT Act,2007 was thereafter required to carry out consequential selection process. In the case of the petitioner(s), the duly constituted selection committee had recommended his name for particular promotion/placement and, therefore, no unauthorized interference could have been made by any unauthorized agency, more particularly, when the recommendations as per the procedure had been placed and approved by the Board of Governors. 22. In the case of the petitioner(s), the duly constituted selection committee had recommended his name for particular promotion/placement and, therefore, no unauthorized interference could have been made by any unauthorized agency, more particularly, when the recommendations as per the procedure had been placed and approved by the Board of Governors. 22. At this stage, it would be necessary to take note of the fact that the Rules relating to promotion of the teachers in the NITs, for the first time, were incorporated through amendment to Statutes 23(5)(a) on 21.7.2017,whereby Schedule 'E’ was added providing for qualification and other terms and conditions of academic staff for NITs. Before this, the only provision relating to such matters was the un-amended provision of Statue 23(5) under the 1st Statute, 2009, which provided applicability of Rules applicable to Central Government employees. 23. Thus, it is only after 2017 that the amended Rules would come into operation and would obviously apply prospectively to future cases and the old cases would continue to be governed by the old Rules or uniform practice being followed by respondent No.2 in the cases of the teachers. 24. Noticeably, when the petitioner's was given an opportunity for promotion/up-gradation in June 2013, he had exercised the option of AICTE/5th CPC norms after his option was sought by respondent No.2 under CAS, which was allowed by respondent No.1 as one time measure for the institutions, who had not conducted such exercise for the last three or more years. Therefore, in such circumstances, there was no reason to give so called relaxation as one time measure as CAS was in routine applicable till the same was discontinued by way of statutory measures brought about in the year 2017. 25. The petitioner's was rightly promoted to the post of Lecture (Selection Grade)/Assistant Professor in the pay scale of Rs.12000-18300/- and placed at the appropriate stage in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100/- with AGP of Rs.8000/- in 6th CPC as per the provisions in para 2(a) (x) of communication dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner's was to wait for three years’ service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) and then was entitled to be placed in the pay band of Rs.37400-6700/- with AGP of Rs.9000/-; and entitled to be re-designated as Associate Professor. 26. The petitioner's was to wait for three years’ service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) and then was entitled to be placed in the pay band of Rs.37400-6700/- with AGP of Rs.9000/-; and entitled to be re-designated as Associate Professor. 26. It would be also noticed that these promotions and subsequent placements were given by respondent No.2 uniformly to its teachers in different departments. The mere fact that the promotion/re-designation of the petitioner's was subject to verification by the Audit Department and subsequent instructions received from the MHRD is inconsequential as this Court has held that the MHRD did not have any power to issue instructions/guidelines dehors the power given to it under the scheme of the NIT Act,2007. 27. Now, adverting to the powers of the Director, as have been questioned in these petitions, it would be noticed from the scheme of the NIT Act, 2007, 1st Statute, that the authorities competent to act and take defined decisions have been specifically mentioned. The power to appoint such authority is also provided under the Statute. Even though, the Director of respondent No.2 is also one of the authorities, who can be appointed in a prescribed manner, but then he can discharge his duties only within the defined norms. He cannot constitute the committee's of his own at least with regard to the teachers with respect to whom he admittedly is not the appointing authority. 28. As a matter of fact, the Director has limited jurisdiction as regards academic staff in the post of Lecture or above and is in fact confined to take decisions for nonacademic staff in any cadre that too where the maximum of pay scale is less than Rs. 10,500/- as per Section 24 of the NIT Act, 2007. Therefore, he could not have of his own constituted the committee's. 29. It is cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides for a particular thing, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. Meaning thereby, that when a statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, JT 2013 (13) SC 176 wherein it has been held as under: “29.1. Meaning thereby, that when a statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, JT 2013 (13) SC 176 wherein it has been held as under: “29.1. There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh & Ors. [ AIR 1964 SC 358 ], this Court held as under: “8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch D 426] is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.” (See also: Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.K.Dubey & Anr. [JT 2012 (3) SC 210 : (2012) 4 SCC 578 ]).” 30. The same principle has also been reiterated in a later judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipak Babaria vs. State of Gujarat and others 2014 AIR SCW 1425,wherein it has been held as under: “53. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch D 426, 431 was first adopted by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 and then followed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1954 SC 322 . This proposition was further explained in paragraph 8 of State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh by a Bench of three Judges, reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 in the following words: “8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted…..” This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, reported in 1999 (8) SCC 266 : ( AIR 1999 SC 3558 ), Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 9 : ( AIR 2001 SC 1512 ) and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited, reported in 2008 (4) SCC 755 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1921 ).” 31. Therefore, once the constitution of the committee at the instance of the Director is held to be illegal, then obviously all consequential actions taken thereafter would also be illegal as it is more than settled that once the infrastructure collapses, the superstructure on which the edifice is built is bound to collapse and hence, the orders passed by the various authorities thereafter have to pave the path of extinction. Therefore, report submitted by such illegally constituted committee on 6.12.2016 (Annexure P-14) is also illegal and consequently, no reliance upon it can be placed even by respondent No.2 and it could not have been placed before respondent No.3, therefore, resultantly even the decision taken by respondent No.3 dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-15) dealing with this report is also liable to be quashed and set aside and all consequential communications thereafter be it communication dated 24.5.2017 or 7.7.2017 or 12.2.2018 (Annexure P-4) wherein respondent No.1 declared the CAS promotion given to the petitioner(s) being not in order and further directed respondent No.3 to consider this matter and decide it in a particular manner are also illegal and without any authority; and are thus liable to be quashed and set aside. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find merits in these petitions and the same are accordingly allowed. Consequently, communication dated 15.6.2016 (Annexure P-13), report dated 6.12.2016 (Annexure P-14), resolution of respondent No.3, item No.12 of meeting held on 13.12.2016 under new item (Annexure P-15) are quashed and set aside. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner's for mapping in AGP of Rs.9500/- in accordance with the Rules and if found eligible to grant all consequential benefits from due date. Further respondents No. 2 and 3 are restrained from withdrawing promotional/placement benefits given to the petitioner's upto the post of Associate Professor and are further restrained from implementing the communication dated 12.2.2018 (Annexure P-24) and the petitioner's is held entitled to all benefits that he is drawing at present. Needless to say that respondents No. 2 and 3 shall consider the case(s) of the petitioner(s) for further promotion to the post of Professor in consequence to the application submitted by him in reference to advertisement No.6/17 (Annexure P-29) and if found eligible, the promotion be given from the due date with all consequential benefits. As regards the Director/Officiating Director of respondent No.2, he shall take only those decisions, for which he has been authorized under the NIT Act, 2007, Statutes and Regulations etc. 33. Since all the other petitioner(s) in the connected writ petitions are similar situated like the petitioner in CWP No. 413/2018, their petitions are also allowed in the aforesaid terms. 34. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 33. Since all the other petitioner(s) in the connected writ petitions are similar situated like the petitioner in CWP No. 413/2018, their petitions are also allowed in the aforesaid terms. 34. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application's, if any, also stands disposed of. 35. The registry is directed to place on record of all connected writ petitions the copy of this judgment.