THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18118 OF 2000 14TH OCTOBER, 2011 Between: Dr.M.Krishnaiah and others. … Petitioners And Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Chittoor District, rep. by its Registrar, And others. …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18118 OF 2000 O R D E R The petitioners were Associate Professors in various disciplines working in Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. By way of this writ petition, they assailed the action of the University in not calling them for interview for promotion to the posts of Professors pursuant to its Circular dated 26.06.2000. They sought a consequential direction to the University to interview them for the said posts and promote them on par with their juniors who were granted such promotions. This Court, by interim order dated 25.09.2000, directed the University to interview the petitioners also for promotion to the posts of Professors. By another interim order dated 13.12.2000, the University was directed to declare their results and to pay them the scale of pay attached to the post of Professor pending disposal of the writ petition. However, upon the vacate stay application filed by the University in WVMP No.338 of 2001 in WP No.18118 of 2000 this Court, by order dated 15.02.2001, vacated the interim order dated 13.12.2000 holding that it would be premature to direct the University to promote the petitioners as their very entitlement for consideration under the Circular dated 26.06.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.208, Higher Education (UE.II.1) Department, dated 29.06.1999, was yet to be decided. It is stated by Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioners, that his clients were granted promotion to the posts of Professors thereafter and some of them have also retired from service. The issue therefore boils down to their claim and entitlement to be considered for promotion from an anterior date pursuant to the Circular dated 26.06.2000 on par with others who were granted such promotion. The service particulars of the petitioners at the time of filing of this case were as under: Sl. No Name of the Candidate Date of appointment as Lecturer Date of obtaining Ph.D. Date of appoint- ment as Senior Scale Lecturer Appointment as Reader Total Service (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1 Dr.M.Krishnaiah March, 1981 1985 March, 1986 March, 1994 19 years 6 months 2 Dr.A.Balaramaiah 1977 1992 1986 Sept., 1992 24 years 3 Dr.A.Rangareddy 1975 1990 1986 1992 25 years 4 Dr.D.Gunasekhar 1983 1980 1986 1994 19 years 7 months 5 Dr.C.Narayana Swamy April, 1977 1977 1986 1996 22 years 6 Dr.K.Chenchi Lakshmi Jan., 1979 Jan. 1994 1986 Jan., 1994 21 years 6 months 7. Dr.K.Thyagaraju Feb., 1982 1981 1987 Sept., 1994 18 years 7 months Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.06.1999 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the context of revision of pay scales under the Revised University Grants Commission Scales of Pay, 1996, the University issued the Circular dated 26.06.2000 for implementing a Career Advancement Scheme for teachers who attained eligibility thereunder by 30.06.2000. In so far as promotion to the post of Professor under the scheme is concerned, the Circular reads as under: “(5) Professor (Promotion): In addition to the sanctioned positions of Professors, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India Advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader.” However, Note-3 appended thereto clarified the position with regard to those in the feeder cadre with long standing service but who did not possess eight years of service as Readers. Note-3 reads as under: “Note-3: The number of years required in a feeder cadre are less than those stipulated in this order, thus entailing hardship to those who have completed more than the total number of years in their entire service for eligibility in the cadre, may be placed in the next higher cadre after adjusting the total number of years. This situation is likely to arise as, in the earlier scheme, the number of years required in a feeder cadre were much more than those envisaged under this notification.” The issue presently is whether the petitioners, who admittedly did not put in eight years of service as Readers by the cut-off date 30.06.2000, could claim relief under Note-3. Sri Khasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the University, submitted that Note-3 was vague and unclear as to its intent and import and it is therefore not open to the petitioners to seek promotion from an anterior date as they did not fulfill the requirement of having eight years of service as Readers by the cut-off date. He pointed out that a similar situation had arisen in Andhra University and the University Grants Commission had clarified that only a Reader with at least eight years of service would be eligible for merit promotion to the post of Professor. This submission finds reflection in the counter of the University. However, it is not clear therefrom as to whether the University Grants Commission was apprised of Note-3 of the Circular, which is nothing but a replication of Note-3 to Clause-5 pertaining to Professors under the caption ‘Career Advancement’ in the Appendix to G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.06.1999. Further, though this very argument was advanced by the University even at the stage of hearing of the vacate application as to the lack of clarity in Note-3 of the Circular dated 26.06.2000, no steps have been taken for resolving the same even though a decade has elapsed since then. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is also a party to these proceedings, but it has not chosen to file a counter clarifying as to what exactly is the meaning and thrust of Note-3. This Court is therefore left with no alternative but to resolve the imbroglio by interpreting and giving meaning to Note-3 of the Circular dated 26.06.2000. No tortuous hermeneutic exercise is called for in this regard. The language in Note-3, inelegant as it is, lends itself to one and only one meaning in the context in which the Note is placed. The Circular dated 26.06.2000 makes it clear that for promotion to the post of Reader, a Lecturer in the senior scale would be eligible upon completion of five years of service as such. A Reader for promotion as a Professor has to put in eight years of service in that post. In all, service of 13 years is required in these two posts for promotion to the post of Professor. Note-3 states to the effect that if the number of years required in the feeder cadre are less than those stipulated in the Circular, then the total number of years of service of such a candidate would have to be taken into reckoning for eligibility to be placed in the next higher cadre after adjusting the total number of years. The subsequent paragraph appended to Note-3 clarifies that this situation is likely to arise as, in the earlier scheme, the number of years required in a feeder cadre were much more than those envisaged under the Circular. The service particulars reflect that all the petitioners became Senior Scale Lecturers in 1986 except petitioner 7, who did so in the year 1987. Thereafter, petitioners 2 and 3 became Readers in the year 1992 while petitioners 1, 4, 6 and 7 became Readers in the year 1994. Petitioner 5 became a Reader in the year 1996. Therefore, by the time the petitioners became Readers they had all rendered in excess of five years of service as Senior Scale Lecturers. As per Note-3 such excess service would have to be taken into reckoning for calculating their eligibility to aspire for promotion to the post of Professor. Once the extra service rendered by them as Senior Lecturers in terms of this Note is taken into consideration and added to their service as Readers, the petitioners would invariably have over and above the requisite eight years of service as Readers. Having stipulated a beneficial norm by way of Note-3 for alleviating the hardship caused to teachers, such as the petitioners, who despite having long years of service would be denied promotion under the Circular, the University conveniently chose to ignore the same and denied the petitioners an opportunity to aspire for promotion. In the light of Note-3 of the Circular, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners were entitled to have their candidature assessed and evaluated on par with others who satisfied the norms without reference to Note-3. As the petitioners were already interviewed pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition, but the results thereof were not given effect owing to the later order dated 15.02.2001 passed in the vacate application, there shall be a direction to the respondent University to consider their cases for promotion to the posts of Professor in their respective disciplines under the Circular dated 26.06.2000 by giving due effect to Note-3 thereof, on the basis of their performance in the interviews which they were permitted to attend pursuant to the earlier interim order passed in this writ petition. The University shall complete this exercise within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and give effect to the promotion of such of the petitioners who are found eligible, on par with others granted promotion pursuant to the Circular dated 26.06.2000. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. PGS