THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. versus RINCYMOL MATHEW
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 642, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
v.
RINCYMOL MATHEW
(Civil Appeal No. 8031 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service law: Denial of the benefits of CAS to the respondent
on the ground that her initial appointment as Lecturer in the School
of Medical Education was not to a post that was duly sanctioned in
terms of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes – Single Judge of
High Court allowed writ petition filed by respondent by observing
that the appointment of the respondent as Lecturer was after
following selection procedure and that she was duly qualified and,
thus, directed to count the past services of the respondent in the
School of Medical Education in accordance with the UGC
Regulations and to grant the benefit of CAS – Division Bench of
the High Court upheld the order of Single Judge – Appeal by
University – Held: Respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the
regular pay-scale after inviting applications from qualified
candidates – The said appointment was after obtaining appropriate
approval from Director, School of Medical Education and sanction
by the Vice-Chancellor and thereafter her probation was declared
w.e.f. 03.10.1999 – Thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant
Professor and thereafter as Associate Professor continuously in the
regular pay-scale – It may be true that at the relevant time when she
was appointed as Lecturer, the post was temporary but on that
temporary
post, her appointment was sanctioned by the Director as
well as Vice-Chancellor – She has continuously worked right from
1998 (03.10.1998) – As per clause 10.1(f) with respect to grant of
CAS, the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of
more than one year duration can be counted provided that : (i) the
period of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the
incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted
Selection Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the
permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service,
without any break – In that view of the matter, when respondent
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 642
642
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
worked continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter
her probation was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed/promoted
as Assistant Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of
Associate Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale,
therefore, she shall be entitled to get her regular service counted
for the period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of
grant of the benefit of CAS – Interference with order of High Court
not called for.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole.
As per clause 10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or
temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted
provided that : (i) the period of service was of more than one
year duration; (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the
recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and
(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in
continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any
break. In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked
continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her
probation was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed/promoted
as Assistant Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post
of Associate Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale,
therefore, the respondent shall be entitled to get her regular
service counted for the period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for
the purpose of grant of the
benefit of CAS. [Paras 6.2, 6.3][647-
H; 648-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8031
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2021 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1355 of 2019.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gaurav Agrawal, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim
Anvar, Abraham C. Mathews, Advs. for the Respondent.
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. v.
RINCYMOL MATHEW
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1355 of 2019 by which the Division Bench
of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by the
appellant and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 13265 of 2018 directing the
appellant University to pass appropriate orders counting the past service
of the respondent, who was working as Assistant Professor in the School
of Behavioural Sciences under the University, for the purposes of
computing the benefits due to her in accordance with the Career
Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “CAS”) under the
UGC Regulations, the University has preferred the present appeal.
2. The respondent herein was initially appointed as a Lecturer in
the School of Medical Education, a self-financing institution under the
appellant University w.e.f. 03.10.1998. The said appointment was
consequent to a selection process that was conducted pursuant to
administrative sanction accorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the University
after obtaining necessary approval from the Director, School of Medical
Education. Initially, she was appointed on probation. Her probation in
the post of Lecturer was thereafter declared on 03.10.1999 and she
continued to work as Lecturer till 05.02.2001. That thereafter she was
appointed as Assistant Professor in Nursing for the period between
06.02.2001 and 11.10.2004 as Associate Professor in Nursing between
04.10.2004 and 11.04.2005 and as Professor in Nursing between
12.04.2005 and 20.01.2011. That thereafter w.e.f. 21.01.2011, she was
appointed as Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioural Sciences,
department of the Mahatma Gandhi University.
2.1 The dispute arose with regard to the entitlement of the
respondent to reckon her service in the School of Medical Education for
the period between 03.10.1998 to 21.02.2011 for the purpose of the
CAS envisaged under the UGC Regulations. Her request for extension
of benefit of CAS was considered favourably by the University and by
order dated 06.12.2013, the Syndicate of the University decided to grant
her the benefits of promotion, pay fixation etc. by reckoning her service
in the School of Medical Education for the said purpose. That thereafter,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of his powers under Section 10(17)
under Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 accepted
the recommendation of the Syndicate Staff Sub-Committee and revoked
the earlier resolution of the Syndicate that had granted the respondent
the benefits of the CAS. The reason stated for revocation of the earlier
Syndicate decision and the denial of the benefits of CAS to the respondent
was that her initial appointment as Lecturer in the School of Medical
Education was not to a post that was duly sanctioned in terms of the
Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes.
2.2 The denial/revocation of the earlier Syndicate decision and
the denial of the benefit of CAS were the subject matter of writ petition
before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition by observing that the appointment of the respondent as
Lecturer was after following selection procedure and that she was duly
qualified. The learned Single Judge therefore directed to count the past
services of the respondent in the School of Medical Education in
accordance with the UGC Regulations and to grant the benefit of CAS.
The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench of the
High Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.
Hence the University has preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant University
has taken us to Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations. It is
submitted
that as per Regulation 10.1, only previous regular service as Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor should be counted for direct recruitment
and promotion under CAS. Therefore, it is submitted that as initially, the
appointment of the respondent as a Lecturer was on temporary post and
was not made after following due procedure as required under the
Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, respondent shall not be
entitled to past services rendered for CAS benefits.
4. While opposing the present appeal, Shri Gaurav Agrawal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has taken us to
the appointment orders appointing the respondent initially as a Lecturer
and thereafter as Assistant Professor and thereafter as Associate
Professor. It is submitted that the initial appointment of the respondent –
original writ petitioner was after following due procedure and on probation
and her probation came to be confirmed subsequently thereafter by order
dated 21.10.2000. It is submitted that thereafter by order dated 03.02.2001
on the approval of the Director, School of Medical Education, respondent
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. v.
RINCYMOL MATHEW [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
– original writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor w.e.f.
06.02.2001 in the regular pay-scale. It is submitted that thereafter her
probation as Assistant Professor was confirmed. It is submitted that
thereafter by order dated 12.10.2004, she was promoted to the post of
Associate professor in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 14300-450-19250.
It is submitted that in that view of the matter neither the learned Single
Judge nor the Division Bench have committed any error in directing the
University to count the period during which the respondent worked as
Lecturer/Assistant Professor/Associate Professor for the purpose of
granting the benefit under the CAS.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
6. We have considered the initial appointment order of the
respondent as Lecturer. Applications were invited from qualified
candidates and thereafter the respondent was appointed as Lecturer in
the regular pay-scale, initially on probation. The said appointment was
after obtaining appropriate approval from Director, School of Medical
Education. The sanction was accorded by the Vice-Chancellor. That
thereafter by order dated 21.10.2000, her probation was declared w.e.f.
03.10.1999. That thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Professor
and thereafter as Associate Professor continuously in the regular pay-
scale.
6.1 It may be true that at the relevant time when she was appointed
as
Lecturer, the post was temporary but as observed hereinabove, on
that temporary post, her appointment was sanctioned by the Director as
well as Vice-Chancellor. As observed hereinabove, she has continuously
worked right from 1998 (03.10.1998) till she continued to work as
Associate Professor. At this stage, the Regulation 10.1 with respect to
the grant of CAS is required to be considered, which reads as under:-
“10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international
as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or
equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other
scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR,
DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted
for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other
nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III-Table
No. II provided that:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
(a)
The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower
than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case
may be.
(b)
The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised
scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer)
Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.
(c)
The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through
proper channel only.
(d)
The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor should possess the same minimum
qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to
the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and
Professor, as the case may be.
(e)
The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed
selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of
University/State Government/Central Government/
Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.
(f)
The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for
any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less
than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of
more than one year duration can be counted provided that:
(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;
(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation
of duly constituted Selection Committee; and
(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in
continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without
any break.
(g)
No distinction should be made with reference to the nature
of management of the institution where previous service
was rendered (private/local body/Government), was
considered for counting past services under this clause.”
6.2 Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole. As per
clause 10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service
of more than one year duration can be counted provided that : (i) the
THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. v.
RINCYMOL MATHEW [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
period of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the incumbent
was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection
Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post
in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.
6.3 In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked
continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her probation
was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed/promoted as Assistant
Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of Associate
Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, the
respondent shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for the
period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant of the
benefit of CAS.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no error
has been committed by the learned Single Judge and/or the Division
Bench of the High Court in allowing the writ petition / writ appeal and
directing the University to grant the benefit of CAS after counting her
earlier service rendered from 03.10.1998. We are in complete agreement
with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is
called for.
Under the circumstances, present appeal fails and deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Devika Gujral
Appeal dismissed.