IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No.2776/2008 Decided on:29.7.2009 Surinder Singh Narta. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in sequel to the advertisement issued by the respondent-University, the petitioner submitted application for the post of Lecturer in Commerce in Post Graduate (PG) Centre in the respondent-University and also for Himachal Pradesh University Evening College. He appeared for interview in the office of Vice Chancellor. The interview was conducted by the Selection Committee for the posts of Lecturer in Commerce for Himachal Pradesh University Evening College and also for the posts of Lecturer in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Commerce in Post Graduate Centre. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Committee of the respondent-University. The name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No.3 in the list of Lecturers in Commerce (PG Centre) and also in the list of Lecturers in Commerce, Himachal Pradesh Evening College. He was offered temporary appointment by the respondent-University on 7.12.1992 against the post of Lecturer in Commerce in Himachal Pradesh University Evening College, Shimla against the vacancy caused due to the appointment of one Dr. C.L. Chandan in the Department of Management Studies (PG Centre). He joined his duties on 7.12.1992. Thereafter he was offered temporary appointment to the post of Lecturer in Commerce in the Department of Commerce (PG Centre) Himachal Pradesh University. He was relieved from Himachal Pradesh University Evening College on 12.3.1993. He joined against the post of Lecturer in Commerce in Himachal Pradesh University (PG Centre) on 13.3.1993. He was regularized from the date of his initial appointment in the Department of Commerce, Himachal Pradesh University i.e. 13.3.1993. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to senior scale as Lecturer immediately after the completion of five years service with effect from 7.12.1997 and not from 13.3.1998. He has further contended that his client was entitled to selection grade with effect from 7.12.2001 instead of 13.3.2002. He lastly contended that the services rendered by the petitioner before 13.3.1993 were required to be counted for the purpose of senior scale as Lecturer. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent- University has supported Annexure A-15 whereby the case of the petitioner has been rejected. He has also drawn the attention of the Court 3 to the norms laid down by the University Grants Commission vide Annexure A-17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The suitability of the petitioner has been adjudged by the duly constituted Selection Committee for the posts of Lecturer in Commerce in Post Graduate Centre as well as Himachal Pradesh University Evening College. The recommendations made by the Selection Committee stood accepted by the Executive Council. He was appointed as a Lecturer on 7.12.1992 against the vacancy caused due to the appointment of Dr. C.L. Chandan. He joined his duties on 7.12.1992. The duration of vacancy was more than one year. The matter remained under consideration of the respondent-University as is evident from the perusal of documents annexed with the petition. His representation was rejected vide Annexure A-15 on the ground that the service rendered by him against the leave vacancy of Lecturer was less than one year duration before regularization of his service as Lecturer. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce the relevant extract of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission for counting of past services, which read thus: “8.0.0 Counting of Past Service Previous service, without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent, in a university, college, national laboratory, or other scientific originations, e.g. CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR and as a UGC Research Scientist, should be counted for placement of lecturer in Senior Scale/Selection Grade provided that: 8.1.0. The post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of a Lecturer; 8.2.0. The qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Lecturer; 4 8.3.0. The candidates who apply for direct recruitment should apply through proper channels; 8.4.0. The concerned Lecturers possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment as Lecturers; 8.5.0. The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Government/Central Government/ Institution’s regulations; 8.6.0. The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted provided- (a) the ad hoc service was of more than one year duration; (b) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and (c) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc service, without any break.” The leave vacancy which had occurred after the appointment of Dr. C.L. Chandan was of more than one year duration. The respondent- university has confused the entire issue by misconstruing the instructions issued by the University Grants Commission. It is not the tenure of the incumbent which is to be seen. What is required to be seen on the basis of plain reading of these instruction is whether the leave vacancy was of less than one year duration or not. The petitioner was appointed on 7.12.1992 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. He has been offered temporary appointment in Post Graduate Centre on 12.3.1993 where he joined his duties on 13.3.1993, which stood regularized on 13.3.1996. In these circumstances even though the petitioner had worked for a period of less than one year against 5 the leave vacancy, this period was required to be counted by the respondent-University for the purpose of senior scale. The respondent- University had not chosen to file the reply to the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-University is directed to grant the senior scale to the petitioner with effect from 7.12.1997 instead of 13.3.1998. The respondent-University is further directed to grant the selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 7.12.2001 instead of 13.3.2002. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. 29.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*