Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 383 (RAJ)

Virendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Raj.

2023-02-02

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs :- "(i) The writ petition preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed; (ii) the respondents be directed to provide the benefit of senior scale upon completion of six years of service to the petitioner; (iii) the respondents be further directed to provide the benefit of selection grade after completion of five years' further service; (iv) the petitioner be provided the aforesaid benefits as if the same were never denied to him along with all consequential benefits including interest on arrears @ 24% per annum; (v) without prejudice to the aforesaid prayers, in the alternative, it is prayed that if at all the plea of the respondents is accepted that the approval of appointment has not been given so far by the Board of Governors, then the same may be directed to issue the approval forthwith along with the benefits as prayed above, and (vi) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice. (vii) Cost may be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali, assisted by Mr. Rohin Bhansali and Mr. Kalpturu Tribpathi appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was given appointment as Lecturer in the Textile Chemistry Department of M.L.V. Textile and Engineering College, Bhilwara upon possessing the qualification of B.Tech in Textile Chemistry and after participating in the recruitment process arising out of the advertisement dated 20.04.1996. 3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the whole bone of contention is the implemtation of Career Advancement Scheme by the AICTE and State of Rajasthan as well as college whereby the petitioner has been deprived of his selection grade w.e.f. the persons, who were similar to him, has been awarded the selection grade i.e. w.e.f. the year 2007, as per the criteria. 4. 4. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to AICTE criteria for Career Advancement Scheme, relevant portion reads as under :- "CAREER ADVANCEMENT : Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D, five years for other with M.Phil / ME / M.Tech and six years for other as a lecturer, and for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) / Assistant Professor, the minimum length of service as Lecturer (Senior scale) shall be uniformly five years." 5. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter drawn attention of this Court towards the communication / order dated 16.03.2022 issued by Government of Rajasthan and Department of Technical Education, relevant potion of which reads as under :- "Guidelines of Career Advancement Scheme : 1. General 1-1 Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D, five years for other with M.Phil / ME / M.Tech and six years for other as a lecturer, and for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) / Assistant Professor, the minimum length of service as Lecturer (Senior scale) shall be uniformly five years. 3. Lecturer (Selection Grade):- Lecturers in the Senior Scale who do not have a Ph.D. degree or equivalent published work, and who do not meet the scholarship and research standards, but fulfils the other criteria given below for the post of Asstt. Professor, and have a good record in teaching and, preferably, have contributed in various ways such as to the corporate life of the institution., examination work, or through Research & extension activities, will be placed in the Selection Grade, subject to the recommendations of the Selection Committee which is the same as for promotion to the post of Asstt. Professor. They will be designated as Lecturers in the Selection Grade. They could offer themselves for fresh assessment after obtaining Ph.D. and / or fulfilling other requirements for promotion as Asstt. Professor and if found suitable, could be given the designation of Asstt. Professor" 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as far as the senior scale is considered, the same has been given to him from 06.09.2002 with a notional effect upto 01.01.2006. 7. Professor and if found suitable, could be given the designation of Asstt. Professor" 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as far as the senior scale is considered, the same has been given to him from 06.09.2002 with a notional effect upto 01.01.2006. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two issues; first is that the notional benefit of selection scale has not been given uniformly to the six candidates, who are in the chart Annex.R/6 dated 24.10.2009; second is that for the purpose of selection grade, the Lecturer Selection Grade, which was next step to the senior scale already granted, was not given alongwith all similarly situated candidates from 2007, but has been given from 2011 when he completed his Ph.D.. degree. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that this is nothing but depriving the petitioner of his lawful rights for selection process because selection grade only prescribes for Ph.D.. criteria whereas the selection committee has selected all the other candidates, who has not having the Ph.D.. degree, particularly, candidate at serial no.19-Smt. Deepti Vashishtha, thus, learned Senior Counsel seeks parity. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.D. Purohit submits his arguments regarding the first issue raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the notional benefits of selection scale has been uniformly given to all the candidates, which is also stated in his counter affidavit and thus, there is neither any arbitrariness nor any prejudice caused to the petitioner, as all the candidates have been given notional benefits from the year of accruing i.e. 2002 and actual benefits from the year 2006; regarding the second issue, he submits that the selection committee has adopted a uniform criteria of M.Tech and since the petitioner is not possessing the qualification of M.Tech, he has not granted the promotion, however, learned counsel Mr. S.D. Purohit harps upon the State criteria, which is already reproduced hereinabove, and submitted that published work, scholarship and research standard and other criteria of good academic record in teaching were to be examined. 10. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.D. Purohit harps upon the State criteria, which is already reproduced hereinabove, and submitted that published work, scholarship and research standard and other criteria of good academic record in teaching were to be examined. 10. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali fairly submits that the counter affidavit has escaped his attention and the notional part of it, is uniformly applicable, thus, he does not wish to contest the same, but harps that petitioner's right for the Senior Selection Grade has to be considered in light of the norms of AICTE as well as State of Rajasthan. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. Since the first issue stands resolved on the prayers having been given up by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on account of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent; the second issue is only to be dealt with by this Court. While dealing with the second issue, this Court finds that norms of AICTE for the purpose of selection grade has only a single criteria i.e. completion of five years of length of service in senior lecturer. 13. This Court also observes that State criteria, which is like a guideline at column no.3 also prescribes for Ph.D. or other standards of the research and good teaching as well as contribution to the institution. 14. This Court finds that the selection committee in its Resolution no.12.2 has drawn the minutes of the award of senior / selection grade / designation of the Assistant Professor under the CAS, the Resolution No.12.2, which is a part of the reply, reads as follows :- "The minutes of the meeting of the subject wise selection committees held for the award of senior / selection grade / designation of Assistant Professor under CAS were approved as proposed. The arrears shall be payable from 01.01.2006. Notional benefits shall be given from the date of eligibility." 15. This Court takes note of the fact that the selection committee has approved the promotion of senior selection grade on the post of Assistant Professor under the CAS for the present petitioner, who is at serial no.18 in the chart. After complete approval of the promotions of benefit to the present petitioner, the selection committee has merely remarked that such benefit has to be given only from the date of award of P.hd. degree. After complete approval of the promotions of benefit to the present petitioner, the selection committee has merely remarked that such benefit has to be given only from the date of award of P.hd. degree. It is not in dispute that all the other candidates, who were given promotion by the selection committee in the same chart, were not having the degree of Ph.D., but at the same time, were having the degree of M.Tech. The M.Tech qualification for the selection grade is neither there in the AICTE norms nor in the State guidelines, thus, once the promotion has been principally approved by the selection committee then it could not have been stopped merely for doing Ph.D., because all other persons who were not having the degree of Ph.D., but simply entitled and granted the promotion. It is not in dispute that selection committee has approved and proposed the name of the petitioner for the promotion after carefully examining the criteria of the State guidelines and it must have been satisfied on count of the factor of the alternate criteria to the Ph.D. which includes the published work, research standards, good record in teaching, contribution to the institution, examination work, research and extension activities etc. The selection committee has examined all these activities and therefore, the approval and proposal of the promotion has been made by them, though prospectively from the date of Ph.D. 16. In the opinion of this Court, when the Ph.D. has not been taken to be a criteria but the alternate criteria has been taken and the selection committee has found the petitioner fulfilling the alternate criteria and has in fact proposed and approved the promotion of the petitioner then the same could not have been denied to the present petitioner in any circumstances. Moreover, AICTE norms does not have any requirement of Ph.D. and also alternate requirements of good teaching record etc. is there in the State guidelines, which the petitioner fulfills. The argument on M.Tech with the other candidates having been given promotion by selection committee does not hold good in the eye of law, because the petitioner himself was approved and proposed on count of his merits except from the date of Ph.D. degree, which could not have been done it an isolated manner, as it would violating the right of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The right of Career Advancement is a vital right and cannot be deprived without strong reason. The selection committee has proposed and approved the promotion, though prospectively from the date of Ph.D., which is not correct, because Ph.D. at an alternate criteria in the State guideline, which the petitioner fulfills and Ph.D. was no criteria in the AICTE guidelines. 17. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits of career advancement / promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the same benefits of granted to the candidates at serial no.19-Smt. Deepti Vashishtha, as recommended by the selection committee i.e. 06.09.2007. All pending applications also stand disposed of.