IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1146 of 2004 Decided on : December 24, 2008 T.R. Sharma …Petitioner. Versus Dr. Y.S. Paramar University and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate. No. 1. Per Surit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 15.10.2004, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby his Original Application No.954 of 2004, for quashing Annexures A-4 dated 17.12.2003 and A-5 dated 17.2.2004, thereby rejecting his request for being considered for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent, under the Career Advancement Scheme, stands dismissed. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner was working as Horticulture Technologist equivalent to Associate Professor in Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, in the year 2002, when he submitted his application for being considered for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… under the Career Advancement Scheme. Vide Annexure A-4 dated 17.12.2003, it was intimated to the petitioner through Associate Director, Regional Horticultural Research Station, Mashobra, that he was not eligible for promotion, as he had not published any research work during the period of assessment and also he had attended only one Refresher Course of 10 days duration. 3. Petitioner made a representation to the respondents, which was rejected, vide Annexure A-5 dated 17.2.2004, wherein it was reiterated that he had not published any research work and had attended only one Refresher Course of 10 days duration and as such, he did not fulfill the requirement of Rules 3(iii) (d) and 5(iii) (B) (c) of CAS Rules. Petitioner then filed Original Application, seeking the aforesaid reliefs 4. Respondents in their reply to the Original Application stated that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion, because of his having not published any work and also on account of his having not attended any Refresher Course of 3-4 weeks duration and that the Refresher Course attended by him was of 10 days duration only. 5. Learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application holding that the petitioner had attended one Refresher Course of 10 days duration only instead of attending such Course of 3 weeks duration and this, according to Screening Committee, was not enough, and so, he was found ineligible for promotion. 6. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal. His contention is that the order is contrary to the …3… Career Advancement Scheme and the Rules framed for its implementation. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel representing respondent No.1. 8. As already noticed, the only ground on which the petitioner stands non-suited by the Tribunal is that he had attended a Refresher Course of 10 days duration only, whereas he was supposed to have attended the Course of three weeks duration. This reasoning of the Tribunal is not in conformity with the eligibility criteria laid down in the Career Advancement Scheme. Rule 3(iii) of Career Advancement Scheme deals with the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent. According to this Rule, an Associate Professor/equivalent is eligible for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent, if he/she – (a) has completed 8 years of service as Associate Professor/equivalent; (b) has obtained a Ph. D degree or has equivalent published work; (c) made some work in the areas of scholarship/research/extension as evidenced; (d) may have opted to attend two seminars/conferences in their subject area and presented paper as one aspect of their promotion/selection to higher level or attended a refresher course to be offered by ASC’s for this level. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner had been Associate Professor/equivalent for 8 years, when he applied for promotion as Professor/equivalent. So, he fulfilled the eligibility condition …4… (a) aforesaid. He was also a Ph. D and, therefore, he fulfilled the eligibility condition (b) also. He being Ph. D was eligible, even if he had not published any work equivalent to Ph. D, which is the alternative for Ph. D, per eligibility condition (b). 10. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not fulfill the condition (c). Their contention is that he had attended a Refresher Course of 10 days duration, whereas for eligibility Refresher Course of 3-4 weeks was required to be attended. Condition (d) aforesaid, nowhere speaks of the duration of Refresher Course. It simply says that the candidate should have attended a Refresher Course. 11. Condition of 3-4 weeks Refresher Course is prescribed for eligibility of Assistant Professors to the post of Associate Professors, vide Rule 3(i)(d) of the aforesaid CAS Rules and not for promotion of Associate Professor to the post of Professor/equivalent. It appears that the respondents were misled by the aforesaid Rule 3(i)(d), while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. Since the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as prescribed under Rule 3(iii)(b)(d), the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim. 12. In Annexure A-5 respondents made mention of Rule- 5(iii) (B) (c) saying that he had not submitted the reprints of three major publications. This ground for rejection of claim of the petitioner is unfounded for two reasons. First, Rule -5 pertains to the procedure for assessment of the merit of a candidate for promotion and not to the eligibility criteria, and secondly, there are documents on record showing that when objection regarding …5… submission of reprints was raised, vide letter dated 23.10.2002, Annexure R-5, petitioner submitted the reprints, vide letter dated 8.11.2002, Annexure R-6, which were forwarded to the respondents, by his Controlling Officer (Associate Director), vide Annexure R-7. 13. In view of above stated position, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the Rules of Career Advancement Scheme, while deciding the Original Application and has committed serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner having not attended any Refresher Course of 3-4 weeks duration was ineligible. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, annexures A-4 and A-5, whereby application of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent was rejected, are quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent, with retrospective effect taking him to be eligible for the said post and to give him all monetary and other consequential benefits. Two months time is given to the respondents comply with the order. No order as to costs. The writ petition stands disposed of. (R.B. Misra), J. December 24, 2008(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.