Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 17 (MAN)

W. VIDYARANI DEVI v. MANIPUR UNIVERSITY

2018-05-08

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner; as well as Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to be issued to the respondents to give placement of Lecturer in senior scale with effect from 06.09.2001 as the petitioner claims to have attained eligibility for getting senior scale of pay as per U.G.C. Regulations by reviewing the order dated 08.11.2005 with regard to the effective date. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner initially joined her service as an Assistant Professor in the Life Sciences Department of Manipur University vide order dated 16.09.1995 with effect from 06.09.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that a lecturer is entitled for placement in the senior scale in terms of the UGC Regulations notified in March 2000 on fulfilling the requisite conditions. The relevant portions of the aforesaid UGC Regulations are reproduced herein below:- "2.2.0 Lecturer (Senior Scale) A Lecturer will be eligible for placement in senior scale through a procedure of selection, if she/he has: (i) Completed 6 years of service after regular appointment with relaxation of one year and two years, respectively, for those with M. Phil. And Ph.D. (ii) Participated in one orientation course and one refresher course of approved duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the University Grants Commission. (Those with Ph.D. degree would be exempted from one refresher course). (iii) Consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports." 4. It may be stated that the Assistant Professor was at the relevant time when the aforesaid UGC regulations was framed, was called Lecturer. Accordingly, there is no dispute about the applicability of the above quoted regulations as far as the claim of the petitioner for placement in the senior scale is concerned. The aforesaid UGC Regulations mandate that a person to be considered for placement in the senior scale lecturer must have completed 6 years of service after regular appointment and also must have participated in one orientation course and one refresher course of approved duration and also must have consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports. The aforesaid UGC Regulations mandate that a person to be considered for placement in the senior scale lecturer must have completed 6 years of service after regular appointment and also must have participated in one orientation course and one refresher course of approved duration and also must have consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports. Thus, from the above, what is required for placement in the senior scale lecturer is the completion of 6 years course and participation of orientation course and refresher course of approved duration and also having consistent satisfactory appraisal performance reports. No other additional condition is stipulated. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner has completed six years of service with effect from 06.09.2001 and since the petitioner claims that she had already participated in the orientation course and also refresher course of the approved duration and since the petitioner has been having consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports, in ordinary course, the petitioner should have been granted the senior scale unless there is any valid reason to deny her the same. 5. According to the petitioner, the only reason why the petitioner has been denied the senior scale of lecturer is that the petitioner did not publish 2 (two) research papers in a professional journal within a maximum period of one year as indicated in the letter of the Registrar, Manipur University, addressed to the petitioner on 23.02.2004. It has been mentioned in the said letter that as per resolution dated 16.02.2004 of the Syndicate, the placement of the petitioner in the senior scale under Career Advancement Scheme will be issued after publication of 2 (two) research papers in a professional journal within a maximum period of one year effective from the date of issue of the orders, failing which the process for placement in the senior scale shall be initiated afresh. 6. Thereafter, only after the petitioner published the 2 (two) research papers, the University granted the senior scale of pay to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 08.11.2005. It is this order which has been challenged in this petition, contending that since there was no requirement of publication of 2 (two) research papers in the professional journal, as per the UGC Regulations, this requirement of additional qualification is not a valid reason to deny the placement of senior scale to the petitioner from an earlier date. Mr. It is this order which has been challenged in this petition, contending that since there was no requirement of publication of 2 (two) research papers in the professional journal, as per the UGC Regulations, this requirement of additional qualification is not a valid reason to deny the placement of senior scale to the petitioner from an earlier date. Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had this additional qualification not been insisted upon the petitioner, the petitioner having fulfilled all the other requirements under the UGC Regulations referred to above, would have been entitled to get the senior scale pay with effect from 06.09.2001 and not from a later date. 7. This plea, however, has been rejected by the University authority contending that the University authority had acted upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee and since the Selection Committee was not satisfied with the performance appraisal report, it recommended that the petitioner would be given placement in the senior scale after she published 2 (two) research papers in a professional journal within a maximum period of one year. It has been further submitted that the said recommendation by the Syndicate of the University, was accepted by the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim the placement in the senior scale from an earlier date. 8. In view of the contentions made by the university authority, this Court directed for production of the relevant records. Today, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the University respondent, has placed before this Court a copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee for placement of Assistant Professor in Life Sciences held on 31.01.2004. It has been submitted by Mr. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the respondents that in case of another person in the Department of Life Sciences, namely, Dr. Ch. Sarojnalini Devi, the Selection Committee recommended her for placement with effect from 13.11.2002 i.e. due date of eligibility however, in case of the petitioner, the Selection Committee was not satisfied with her performance appraisal reports, and as such, recommended that she should be placed in the senior scale only after publication of 2 (two) research papers in a professional journal within a maximum period of one year. It was also stated that the Selection Committee has inherent power to adopt its own procedure and make additional qualifications for grant of senior scale of pay. It was also stated that the Selection Committee has inherent power to adopt its own procedure and make additional qualifications for grant of senior scale of pay. In view of the above, this Court had requisitioned the records, which the learned senior counsel has placed before this Court, a copy of the proceeding of the Selection Committee held on 31.01.2004. The contents of the proceedings of the aforesaid proceeding are reproduced herein below:- "Dr. W. Vidyarani Devi, Assistant Professor in the Department of Life Science, who had become eligible for placement in senior scale under the career advancement scheme of the University Grants Commission appeared before the selection committee. The Committee taking into account the self appraisal reports, publications, and the performance at the personal interview and recommended Dr. W. Vidyarani Devi for placement in the senior scale under the career advancement scheme of the University Grants Commission. The Committee noted that Dr. Vidyarani Devi has not published any research paper and feels that she must publish at least two research papers in professional journals within a maximum period of one year." 10. Perusal of the aforesaid proceeding of the meeting held on 31.0.2004, does not indicate that the appraisal report was not satisfactory as mentioned in the affidavit. It only mentions that the petitioner has not published any research paper and it was felt that she must publish at least two research papers in a professional journal within a maximum period of one year. Therefore, in absence of any finding by the Selection Committee that the performance appraisal report was not satisfactory, this Court is not inclined to accept the said plea taken by the University in the affidavit to that effect. Further, it has to be also seen whether the Selection Committee has any competency to stipulate further qualifications for placement under the senior scale in addition to what had been prescribed by the UGC. While it is true that the Selection Committee has inherent power to adopt its own procedure, it cannot add any substantive qualification not otherwise mentioned under the UGC Regulations. UGC Regulations do not prescribe the requirement of publication of 2 research papers. UGC Regulations also do not empower the Selection Committee to prescribe additional qualifications at the wisdom and discretion of the Selection Committee. 11. UGC Regulations do not prescribe the requirement of publication of 2 research papers. UGC Regulations also do not empower the Selection Committee to prescribe additional qualifications at the wisdom and discretion of the Selection Committee. 11. This Court is of the view that the Selection Committee was not competent to prescribe any additional qualification not mentioned or provided under the UGC Regulations. Though it was free to adopt its own procedure, prescribing additional qualifications insisted upon by the Selection Committee cannot be said to be part of its authority to lay down its own procedure. 12. In view of the above, the submission made by Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner that the University authority was not entitled to prescribe any additional qualification other than the UGC Regulations, is found acceptable by this Court. After referring to the proceeding if the Selection committee, where there is no such finding of the Selection Committee that the performance appraisal reports of the petitioner was not satisfactory, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to be placed in the senior scale pay on fulfilling the conditions mentioned under the UGC Regulations. Further, this Court would also clarify that since the UGC Regulations provide that a person will become eligible for being placed in the senior scale pay on fulfilling the conditions, the obvious consequence will be that such placement will be from the date the Selection Committee so recommends. It has been submitted that in respect of others, the Selection Committee had placed the senior scale placement from the date when the Selection Committee holds the meeting. In the present case, also it has been submitted by the petitioner that in respect of other eligible Lecturers/Assistant Professors, they had been given senior scale from the respective entitled dates as mentioned in para 9 of the petition. This aspect will be considered by the University authorities, and if other similarly situated persons had been given the placement in the senior scale from the date of eligibility, the petitioner will also be given same benefit. On the other hand, if other persons are given placement in the senior from the date of holding of the Selection Committee meeting, the petitioner may be given the same benefit, which exercise shall be undertaken by the University authorities within a period of 3(three) months. On the other hand, if other persons are given placement in the senior from the date of holding of the Selection Committee meeting, the petitioner may be given the same benefit, which exercise shall be undertaken by the University authorities within a period of 3(three) months. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of.