THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17699 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology, Nizam College by the Osmania University, through proceedings, dated 14.05.2007 in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500. The Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) introduced by the University Grants Commission provides for various benefits. One such benefit is the grant of senior scale to the Assistant Professors. The guidelines issued for that purpose direct that an Associate Professor shall be entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.10000- 15200 on completion of six years of service after regular appointment. Relaxation to the extent of one year is provided in favour of the candidates who have M.Phil Degree and two years, for those who are awarded Ph.D. Degree. The University initiated steps for extending the benefit of CAS to its Lecturers and other categories of Teachers by issuing Circular, dated 10.12.2008. The petitioner holds Ph.D. qualification and has submitted his application. However, even if the petitioner holds Ph.D., he was required to put in four years of service from the date of his regular appointment i.e. 14.05.2007. The petitioner however claimed the benefit of his past service and pleaded that he is eligible to be conferred the benefit. Alleging that the respondents are not considering his case, he filed the writ petition. An interim order was passed on 28.08.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.23206 of 2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court; through memo, dated 08.02.2010, the University rejected the case of the petitioner, stating that he is not entitled to count any past service rendered as Academic Consultant or part-time Teacher. Reference was made to the guidelines issued by the Government of A.P. in G.O.Ms.No.208. The petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.22305 of 2011 seeking amendment of the writ petition, to bring in its fold, the challenge to the memo, dated 08.02.2010. The same was ordered on 08.07.2011. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to count the past service rendered as Academic Consultant and Part-time Teacher and there is absolutely no justification for the respondents in denying the same. It is also stated that several Assistant Professors, who were appointed along with him, were extended the benefit. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit and the supporting documents are filed. It is stated that a Teacher would be entitled to count his past service, if only it fits into the parameters laid down in Clause (5) of the guidelines and that the case of the petitioner does not fit into it. Heard Sri D.Goverdhana Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents. It has already been mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on 14.05.2007. Steps for extending the benefit under the CAS were initiated through Circular, dated 10.12.2008. The petitioner had just one and half years service by that date. An Assistant Professor would acquire the eligibility to be granted the senior scale on completion of six years of service after his regular appointment. This period gets reduced by one year for the candidates, who possess M.Phil Degree and two years by those, who possess Ph.D. Since the petitioner held Ph.D Degree, he was required to have four years of service to become eligible. The guidelines provided for counting of past service for Assistant Professors, subject to certain conditions. The relevant portion reads as under: 5. COUNTING OF PAST SERVICE: Previous Service, without any break as Assistant Professor or equivalent, in a University, College, National Laboratory, or other scientific organization, e.g. CSIR, ICAR, DRDI, UGC, ICSSE, ICHR and a UGC Research Scientist, should be counted for placement of Assistant Professor in Senior Scale/Selection Grade provided that: 1. The post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of an Assistant Professor 2. The qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Assistant Professor 3. The candidates who apply for direct recruitment should apply through proper channels 4. The concerned Assistant Professor possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment as Assistant Professor 5. The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Government/Central Government/ institutions’s regulations 6. 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. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not have any past service, which fits into this clause. The past service claimed by him is in the capacity of Academic Consultant and Part-time teacher. Admittedly, those appointments were not in the category of institutions mentioned in Clause (5), much less they were on the basis of regular selection. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of senior scale cannot be accepted. The petitioner strongly contends that several persons, who were appointed along with him, were extended the benefit of senior time scale. The record placed before this Court by the respondents discloses that it is only those persons, who fulfilled the conditions in Clause (5) of the guidelines, that were extended the benefit of past service. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner as to discrimination is without basis. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It hardly needs any mention that if any Assistant Professor was extended the benefit of senior time scale, contrary to the relevant guidelines, it shall be open to anyone including the petitioner to assail the same before the competent Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 18.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17699 of 2009 Date: 18.08.2011 JSU