The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6150 of 2018 Dr. Bijaya Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 06.02.2024 Order No 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.C. Puspalaka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- therefore prays “The petitioner that your Lordships may be pleased to consider the facts stated above, admit the writ application, call for the records and after hearing the parties the order dtd.05.04.2018 pass by the registrar OUAT may kindly be quashed & the registrar OUAT may kindly be directed to call the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor under CAS from the date he is eligible & accordingly the promotional benefits may kindly be given to the petitioner from 01.06.2009 the date he is eligible to get promotion to the post of Professor under CAS or else he will be seriously prejudice & shall suffer irreparable loss. to consider his case interview for // 2 // And other order/orders may be pass as this Hon’ble Court would deem just and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor vide order dtd.01.06.2006. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the circular issued by the University on 19.08.2014 under Annexure-2, applications were invited from eligible Teachers of OUAT in receipt of UGC scale of pay, for consideration of their promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Petitioner made his application to get the benefit of promotion to the post of Professor on 01.06.2009. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per the notification issued by the University on 19.08.2014 under Annexure-2, an Associate Professor on completing 3 years service in Stage-4 and possessing Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, to be placed in the next higher grade at Stage-5 subject to certain conditions. 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner though fulfills all the eligibility criteria in terms of the circular issued by the University on 17.12.2016 under Annexure-3 and Petitioner made his application within the stipulated time to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Professor on 01.06.2009, but the University after receipt of the application remained silent without taking any decision on his claim. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also relied on the guideline issued by the UGC in the year 2010 vide Annexure-1. Placing reliance on the stipulation contained under Para 6.3.1, it is Page 2 of 6 // 3 // contended that the University after receipt of the application from the Petitioner, should have taken a decision and complete the selection process within six (6) months from the date of receipt of the application. Para 6.3.1 of the UGC guideline speaks as follows:- to submit “6.3.1. A teacher who wishes to be considered for promotion under CAS may submit in writing to the university/college, with three months in advance of the due date, that he/she fulfils all qualifications under CAS and 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 Committees 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 any hardships candidates who fulfill all other criteria mentioned in these Regulations, as on 31 December, 2008 and till the date on which this Regulation is notified, can be considered for promotion from the date, on or after 31 these eligibility December, 2008, on which conditions, provided as mentioned above.” fulfill they 4.4. It is contended that by keeping the matter pending and only on the ground that Petitioner retired from his service by the time his claim was considered on 31.03.2016, Petitioner was declared not eligible to get the benefit of promotion. It is contended that since in terms of the UGC guideline, the selection process was required to be completed within six months from the date of application, which was much before the date of retirement of the Petitioner, the ground on which the claim of the Petitioner was not considered is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is contended that since by the time Petitioner’s claim was considered, Petitioner had already retired from his service, Petitioner at best could have been extended with the benefit of promotion on notional basis. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 5. Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi, learned counsel for the University on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that even though in terms of the circular issued by the University on 17.12.2016 under Annexure-3, Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Professor within the stipulated time, but by the time the matter was considered by the Selection Committee on 01.06.2018, since Petitioner had already retired w.e.f.31.03.2016, in view of the stipulation contained in the letter issued by the University on 05.04.2018 under Annexure-7, Petitioner was not found eligible to get the benefit of promotion. The stand taken by the Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 in Para 4 (i) of the counter in W.P.(C) No. 7621 of 2018 is reproduced hereunder:- “i. The screening committee while going through the screening of documents of the teachers/scientists has followed the UGC guidelines for calculation of API score marks in respect of the concerned teachers. In the UGC Regulation, 2010 under Clause 6.3.9., it is envisaged that “The incumbent teachers must be in the role and active service of the University/Colleges on the date of consideration by the selection committee for selection/CAS promotion” (annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E). Keeping in view of the above conditions of the UGC Regulations, the scrutiny committee did not award any marks in respect of the petitioner since he had already been retired from OUAT service w.e.f.31.10.2017 (A.N.). The selection for the promotion to the rank of Professor in Entomology under CAS was held on 10.06.2018 at 10.00 A.M. As the screening committee did not find the petitioner eligible as per UGC norms, he was not called forward to appear before the selection committee on the scheduled date.” Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 5.1. Mr. Pattajoshi accordingly contended that since by the time the Selection Committee held its meeting on 01.06.2018, Petitioner had already retired from his service w.e.f.31.03.2016, in view of the stipulation contained in the letter issued by the University on 05.04.2018, he was not found eligible to get the benefit of promotion. It is accordingly contended that no illegality has been committed in not considering the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor vide order dtd.01.06.2006. Pursuant to the circular issued by the University on 17.12.2016 under Annexure-3, Petitioner made his application to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Professor – Stage-5. As found from the notification issued by the University on 19.08.2014 under Annexure-2, Petitioner by the time he made the application, he was eligible to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of Professor. But even though the Petitioner made his application within the stipulated time, the matter was not considered in terms of the provision contained under Para 6.3.1 of the guideline issued under Annexure-1. However, taking a plea that Petitioner has retired from his service w.e.f.31.03.2016 and placing reliance on the letter issued by the University on 05.04.2018 under Annexure-7, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected. 6.1. It is the view of this Court that since in terms of the notification issued by the University on 19.08.2014 under Annexure-2 and the circular issued by the University on 17.12.2016 under Annexure-3, Petitioner by the time he made the application was eligible to get the benefit of promotion placing reliance on the subsequent circular Page 5 of 6 // 6 // which was issued on 05.04.018, the claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected. In view of such position, this Court is inclined to held that the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of promotion should have been considered in terms of the notification issued by the University on 19.08.2014 under Annexure-2 and the plea taken by the University that by the time the Selection Committee held its meeting, Petitioner already retired from his service and accordingly he is not entitled to get the benefit of promotion is not acceptable.
Decision
6.2. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of promotion in terms of the notification issued by the University on 19.08.2014 under Annexure-2. On such consideration if it is found that the Petitioner was otherwise eligible to get the benefit of promotion, then such benefit be extended in favour of the Petitioner, but on notional basis only. Petitioner will be entitled to get revision of his pension and other pensionary benefits, on such fixation of the pay on notional basis. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Feb-2024 19:55:54 Page 6 of 6