@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.@mdash1. The order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short, ''Tribunal'') in Original Application No. 283/2010 is called in question in these writ petitions.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to issue orders relating to promotion of the respondent herein w.e.f. 15.04.2007 i.e., the date of completion of 25 years of service by the respondent herein. While concluding so, the Tribunal has relied upon the proviso to Clause-2.8.0 of the University Grants Regulations, 2000 regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in the Universities and Colleges (for short, ''UGC Regulations-2000'').
2. The records reveal that the respondent was appointed as a "Lecturer" in the year 1976. She was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) on 01.01.1994. She completed her Ph.D in the year 2002 and consequently, she was designated as a ''Reader'' in the year 2002. Subsequently, in the year 2007, the respondent applied for the benefit flowing from Career Advancement Scheme (for short, ''CA Scheme'') to get the pay scale of the Professor Grade. The request of the respondent was turned-down by the Institute/Employer ie., the petitioners herein. Such an order of refusal of the request of the respondent was called in question by the respondent before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 283/2010, which came to be allowed with a direction to the petitioners to accord the benefit flowing from CA scheme from 15.04.2007 by applying the proviso contemplated in Clause-2.8.0 of the UGC Regulations-2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal is not justified in applying the provisions in Clause-2.8.0 of the Regulations-2000 regarding minimum qualification for appointment and Career Advancement for Teachers in Universities and Colleges. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Clause-2.5.0 of the UGC Regulations-2000 is applicable to the facts of the case.
Per contra, Sri. Ramana M.V.V, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein, argued in support of the order of the Tribunal.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note eligibility criteria to be appointed as a Lecturer/Reader/Professor as found in UGC Regulations-2000 mentioned supra. Clause-2.3.0 deals with Lecturers Selection Grade, and the same reads thus:--
"2.3.0. Lecturer (Selection Grade)
Lecturer in the Senior Scale who do not have a Ph.D. degree or equivalent published work, and who do not meet the scholarship and research standards, but fulfill the other criteria given above for the post of Reader, and have a good record in teaching and, preferably, have contributed in various ways such as to the corporate life of the institution, examination work, or through extension activities, will be placed in the Selection Grade, subject to the recommendations of the Selection Committee which is the same as for promotion to the post of Reader. They will be designated as Lecturers in the Selection Grade. The could offer themselves for fresh assessment after obtaining Ph.D. and/or fulfilling other requirements for promotion as Reader and, if found suitable, could be given the designation of Reader."
5. A careful reading of Clause-2.3.0 of the UGC Regulations-2000 makes it amply clear that the Lecturers in senior scale, who do not have Ph.D decree or who do not have equivalent published work and who do not meet the scholarship and research standards but fulfill the other criteria for the post of Reader etc. they can be placed in the Selection Grade, subject to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, which is the same as for promotion to the post of the ''Reader''. However, it is further made clear in Clause 2.3.0 that the persons who are Lecturers (Selection Grade), who obtained Ph.D Degree subsequently should offer themselves for fresh assessment after obtaining Ph.D. degree or fulfill the other requirements for promotion as ''Reader'' which means, the designation (or post) of Reader will be given to Lecturers (Selection Grade) only if they obtain Ph.D. Decree and only if they fulfill other requirements for promotion as ''Reader''. Merely because a person is promoted as Lecturer (Selection Grade), he cannot be automatically treated as a ''Reader''. Certain more qualifications are needed to be designated as Reader.
6. It is further relevant to note that the requirement for promotion to the post of ''Reader'' as found in Clause-2.4.1, which reads thus:--
"2.4.1. A Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader if she/he has:
i) Completed 5 years of service in the Senior Scale;
ii) Obtained a Ph.D. degree or has equivalent published work;
iii) Made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidence e.g., by self-assessment, reports of references, quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula and extension activities;
iv) After placement in the Senior Scale participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes of approved duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the University Grants Commission, and
v) Possesses consistently good performance appraisal reports."
Thus, it is clear from reading Clause-2.4.1 that certain requirements are prescribed to be promoted as a ''Reader''. The major requirement is to obtain Ph.D. degree. Only after obtaining Ph.D. degree, the Lecturer (Selection Grade) will be designated as ''Reader'', the lecturers (selection grade) shall also fulfill other requirements.
7. In the matters on hand, admittedly the respondent has completed her Ph.D Degree in the year 2002 and she was re-designated as ''Reader'' in the year 2002. These facts are not in dispute.
Clause-2.5.0 deals with Professors (Promotion), and reads thus:--
"2.5.0 In addition to the sanctioned position of professors, which must be filled in through direct recruitment through all India advertisements, promotions may be made from the post of Reader to that of Professor after 8 years of service as Reader."
8. Clause- 2.5.0 as mentioned supra, further makes it clear that promotion may be made from the post of Reader to Professors only after eight years of service as Reader. Thus, it is compulsory that the Reader must have worked in the Grade of ''Reader'' for eight years. Since the respondent was re-designated as ''Reader'' in the year 2002, she could have been promoted as Professor in the year 2010 and not earlier thereto. Thus, if the promotion is not given to the respondent after completion of eight years from the year 2002, then she would be entitled to the benefit flowing under CA Scheme and not earlier there to.
9. Clause-2.8.0 relied upon by the Tribunal is not at all applicable to the facts of the cases on hand.
Clause-2.8.0. reads thus:--
"2.8.0.--If the number of years required in a feeder cadre are less than those stipulated in this notification, thus entailing hardship to those who have completed more than the total number of years in their entire service for eligibility in the cadre, may be placed in the next higher cadre after adjusting the total number of years.
This situation is likely to arise as in the earlier scheme, the number of years required in a feeder cadre were much more than those envisaged under this notification"
The second portion of Clause-.2.8.0 clarifies that, the situation as found in first portion of Clause-2.8.0 may arise in certain cases, inasmuch as in the earlier CA Scheme, number of years required in a Feeder Cadre were much more than those envisaged under the UGC Regulations-2000. In the earlier scheme, for promotion to the post of Principal, might be more than eight years period was needed. In view of the of Regulations-2000 the modified CA Scheme might have come into existence and according to the CA Scheme 2002, eight years experience as Reader is prescribed for being promoted as professor. The persons, who had already completed 8 to 10 years etc., as ''Readers'' would get the benefit flowing from CA Scheme-2000. Under such circumstances, Clause-2.8.0 came to their aid, inasmuch as they are also entitled for the benefit of CA Scheme 2000 after completion of eight years in view of the new Scheme. Such facts are not in existence in this case, inasmuch as, admittedly the respondent had completed only five years in Reader''s grade when she applied for the benefit of CA Scheme to get the benefit of Professor''s pay-scale. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is not justified in directing the petitioners to grant the benefit under the CA Scheme-2000 in favour of the respondent w.e.f. 15.04.2007, inasmuch as the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of CA Scheme only after completion of eight years from the year 2002. Accordingly, the following order is made:--
ORDER
The impugned order stands set aside. We clarify that the respondent herein is entitled for the benefit flowing from CA scheme w.e.f. the year-2010 i.e., the date on which she had completed eight years of service as ''Reader''.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
