IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8076 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 23.2.2011 Date of decision: 21.3.2011 Dr. Chander Dev Thapa …Petitioner. Versus Dr. Y.S.Parmar University ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner in the petition has raised grievance for not giving him promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme as Associate Professor w.e.f. 20.2.1988 and Professor or equivalent on completion of 8 years of service with all consequential benefits and for quashing Annexure A-8 (sic) and Annexure A-14 dated 3.5.1999. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent-University to re-fix the pay and allowances of the petitioner and release the arrears to him alongwith interest. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he joined the respondent as Research Associate/Assistant Scientist in the scale of ` 700-1600 revised to ` 2200-4000 in the Department of Mycology and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 Plant Pathology. On 25.3.1989 the petitioner was promoted as Extension Specialist/Associate Professor in the pay scale of ` 3700- 5700. The respondent framed Personal Promotion Scheme and sought the options from all eligible candidates for getting promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme. The petitioner gave his option on 31.8. 1989. The university demanded 10 copies of bio-data from petitioner, which were supplied by the petitioner on 3.10.1989. The application of the petitioner was recommended by the competent authority, but petitioner was not promoted under the Personal Promotion Scheme nor he was given any information. 3. The Career Advancement Scheme was amended and vide notification dated 30.8.1991 the respondent informed that teachers appointed on or before 1.2.1988 are also eligible to exercise their fresh options either for Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme on prescribed proforma within a period of 30 days. Those teachers who have become eligible for promotion to the next higher post as a result of their fresh options may send their bio- data alongwith their options within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the petitioner again gave his option for promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme on 4.9.1991. The respondent, however, did not take any decision on the option given by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner became eligible for further promotion to the post of Professor under Personal Promotion Scheme w.e.f. 25.3.1997 and petitioner again applied for the same. The petitioner submitted representation Annexure A-8 to the respondent for considering his case for promotion to the post of Professor w.e.f. 25.3. 1997. The 3 respondent took the stand that the cut of date of Personal Promotion Scheme was 1.2.1988 i.e. teachers appointed on or before 1.2.1988 are only entitled to the benefit of promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme. The date of appointment of petitioner as Extension Specialist is 25.3.1989, as such, his case for promotion to the next higher post cannot be considered. However, the petitioner was not communicated the rejection and he continued to send reminders dated 2.2.1998 and 22.4.1998. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the petitioner was informed rejection of his case which was communicated to him vide letter dated 5.9.1997. The petitioner submitted a representation which was again rejected vide communication dated 3.5.1999. The petitioner filed appeal before Vice Chancellor which was forwarded vide communication dated 2.5.2000. The petitioner sent reminders dated 25.9.2000, 23.1.2001 but no decision was heard from the respondents. 5. The university has given the same benefit to the juniors and similar situate persons as the scheme was extended till the year 1999 vide Annexure A-20. The petitioner has thus filed the petition for the reliefs, noticed above. 6. The respondent has contested the petition by filing reply and has taken the stand that petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology on 20.2.1975. In the year 1987 Personal Promotion Scheme was notified by the respondent for the teachers with eligibility criteria on 1.1.1988. The petitioner also applied under the scheme for promotion but due to 10% quota promotion under Rule 2 (iv) of the scheme his case was not considered. In the year 1988, the petitioner applied for 4 direct recruitment for the post of Extension Specialist (MPP) and was selected and joined the higher scale ` 3700-5700 post on 25.3.1989. As such, the question of grant of promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme is not tenable and justified as per rules. Some amendments were made in Career Advancement Scheme, the teachers appointed on or before 1.2.1988 were given opportunity vide notification dated 30.8.1991 to give their fresh options either for Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioner again exercised his option for Personal Promotion Scheme on 4.9.1991. The option for Personal Promotion Scheme exercised in response to notification dated 5.8.1989 (Annexure R-6) had already been considered for promotion and case of petitioner did not fall under 10% quota upto 1.2.1988 i.e. the cut-off-date, as such, no action was required on his fresh option exercised vide communication dated 4.9.1991. 7. The Board of Management of the University in the meeting held on 31.10.2001 had decided that fresh options may be given to all the teachers (Assistant Professor/equivalent) who were appointed on or before 1.2.1988 under the Personal Promotion Scheme. In pursuance of the decision of the Board of Management, fresh options were called from all teachers appointed on or before 1.2.1988 vide notification dated 13.12.2001. The petitioner, who was appointed as Research Assistant/Assistant Professor/equivalent before 1.2.1988 could exercise his option for Personal Promotion Scheme and his case can be considered as per rules of the Personal Promotion Scheme, if he exercises his option, in due course of time. 5 8. The petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the cadre of Associate Professor/equivalent as his case did not fall within 10% quota of the year 1988. The question of his promotion to the cadre of Professor/equivalent does not arise. Moreover, the date of appointment of the petitioner as Extension Specialist (MPP) equivalent to Associate Professor is 25.3.1989 after the cut-off-date of the Personal Promotion Scheme, as such, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Professor/equivalent. It has been submitted that respondent-University is, therefore, not wrong and has not violated the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Annexure R-5 is the Notification dated 17.10.1987 notifying rules regarding appointment of teachers by promotion (under Personal Promotion Scheme) of the respondent-University. These rules are applicable to appointments by promotion to Associate Professors and other equivalent level teachers as Professors and equivalents. These rules also apply to Assistant Professors or other equivalents level teachers for promotion as Associate Professors and equivalents. The Rule 2 (iv) provides that number of teachers to be promoted each year will not exceed 10% of the total strength in position in each cadre as on 31st March of that year (excluding the teachers promoted under this scheme). The Rule 3 provides conditions which will govern the promotions. According to Rule 3 (ii) by 30th June of the year in which a teacher offers himself for assessment, he must have put in at least 10 years of service in the respondent-University itself in the cadre from which he is being considered for promotion. Clause (c )(ii) of Rule 3 6 provides that in case of erstwhile Lecturers/Research Assistants/AESs who are now working as Assistant Professors or equivalent will also be eligible for assessment for promotion as Associate Professor or equivalent provided they fulfill the educational qualifications prescribed in Rule 3 (i) and have also put in three years more total service than that required to be rendered by an Assistant Professor or equivalent for the purpose of personal promotion. The Rule 3 (v) provides that the period of service rendered by a teacher after promotion under this scheme will not count for further promotion under the scheme. The University vide notification dated 5.8.1989 has reduced the eligibility period for promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme from 10 years to 8 years w.e.f. 1.1.1988. 10. As per respondent, the petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology on 20.2.1975. The petitioner was directly selected/recruited as Extension Specialist (MPP) which is equivalent to Associate Professor and joined in the higher scale of ` 3700 -5700 on 25.3.1989, therefore, he could not be given promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme. It has come on record that petitioner has been promoted from the rank of Extension Specialist (MPP) to the rank of Senior Extension Specialist (MPP) equivalent to Professor in the pay scale of ` 16400 -22400 w.e.f. 27.7.1998 vide office order dated 12.11.2001 under Career Advancement Scheme for the teachers of respondent- University. 11. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties could not point out from the rules any cut of date 1.1.1988 as per stand 7 taken by the University in the reply. The petitioner was directly selected/recruited as Extension Specialist (MPP) in the higher scale of ` 3700 -5700 and he joined on that post on 25.3.1989. The petitioner was eligible for promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme but in the year 1988, his case did not fall in 10% quota prescribed for promotion under the scheme and, therefore, he could not be promoted, lateron he was directly selected/recruited as Extension Specialist (MPP) and therefore, there is no question of giving promotion to the petitioner as Associate Professor or equivalent under Personal Promotion Scheme when he was already directly selected/recruited as Extension Specialist (MPP). 12. On 30.8.1991 an opportunity was given to teachers to submit their fresh options either for Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme. The Board of Management of the University on 31.10.2001 decided to give fresh options under Personal Promotion Scheme. It is the stand of the University that the petitioner who was appointed as Research Assistant/ Assistant Professor/equivalent before 1.2.1988 could exercise his option for Personal Promotion Scheme and his case could be considered as per rules of Personal Promotion Scheme. 13. The petitioner having been directly selected/recruited as Extension Specialist(MPP)equivalent to Associate Professor and joined as such on 25.3.1989, therefore, he could not be given benefit of Personal Promotion Scheme for his promotion to the post of Associate Professor or equivalent under the rules. However, the case of the 8 petitioner for promotion as Professor or equivalent under Personal Promotion Scheme is different. 14. The respondent on 30.8.1991 called fresh options from the teachers for promotion under Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme. The Board of Management of the University on 31.10.2001 decided to give fresh options under Personal Promotion Scheme. The University even took the stand that petitioner who was appointed as Research Assistant/Assistant Professor/equivalent before 1.2.1988 could exercise his option for Personal Promotion Scheme. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Extension Specialist (MPP) equivalent to Professor w.e.f. 27.7.1998 on 12.11.2001 under Career Advancement Scheme. 15. The respondent-University considered the case of the petitioner for promotion as Associate Professor or equivalent under Personal Promotion Scheme but rejected the same on the ground that his case did not fall under 10% promotion provided under Personal Promotion Scheme and he had already been directly selected/recruited as Extension Specialist (MPP) equivalent to Associate Professor which post he joined on 25.3.1989 and, therefore, he could not be given the benefit of Personal Promotion Scheme. The respondent-University has, however, not considered the case of the petitioner under Personal Promotion Scheme for promotion as Professor. As noticed above, there is no cut of date as such in the rules. The petitioner completed 8 years of service as Extension Specialist (MPP)/Associate Professor on 25.3.1997. The petitioner has been given promotion as Senior Extension Specialist (MPP) on 27.7.1998 under Career Advancement 9 Scheme instead of 25.3.1997 when petitioner became eligible for promotion as Senior Extension Specialist (MPP) equivalent to Professor under Personal Promotion Scheme and, therefore, Annexure A-14 is liable to be quashed. 16. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed, Annexure A-14 dated 3.5.1999 rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor/equivalent under Personal Promotion Scheme is quashed. The respondent-University in the light of above observations is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Professor/equivalent under Personal Promotion Scheme of the University within a period of three months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority, with all consequential benefits. March 21, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.