Holding

A person who becomes a university employee during a Ph.D. programme is deemed an in‑service candidate and is bound by the statutory restrictions, precluding the grant of further semester extensions.

Summary

Raj Kumar Thakur enrolled as a Ph.D. student in Agriculture at Dr. Y.S. Parmar University, a programme that allowed six semesters with possible extensions. While completing his seventh semester, he was appointed as an Assistant Scientist (Assistant Professor) of the same university, thereby becoming an employee. The university, relying on its statutes, refused his request for registration to the ninth semester, arguing that as an in‑service employee he was subject to restrictions requiring the course to be unavailable elsewhere, a five‑year continuous service, and seniority considerations. The Himachal Pradesh High Court held he was not an in‑service candidate and ordered his registration for the ninth and tenth semesters. The Supreme Court, by a majority, reversed this, holding that upon appointment he became an in‑service candidate and the statutory restrictions applied, and that granting the extension would unfairly prejudice senior employees. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a university employee who was a Ph.D. candidate before appointment becomes an in‑service candidate subject to statutory restrictions on further registration.
Whether granting semester extensions to such an employee would violate the university's seniority and service‑based provisions and amount to unlawful discrimination.

Subjects

in‑service candidatedoctoral programmesemester extensionsenioritydiscriminationuniversity statutesemploymentstudy leave

Judgment

A DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE
AND FORESTRY AND ANR.
v.
I
RAJ KUMAR THAKUR
~
AUGUST 17, 1990
B
[L.M. SHARMA AND J .S. VERMA , JJ .]

Y.S. Parmar University-Ph.D . student appointed Assistant
Professor-Whether an in-service candidate-Whether entitled to exten-
sion of semesters.
c The grant of permission to an in-service teacher of the appellant-
University to undertake doctoral programme is subject to the statutory
restrictions; (a), that the course of study is not available in other institu-
tions and universities, (b) that the study leave would be admissible for
-
pursuing approved courses outside the University only, (c) that the . -.J

D study leave would be granted after the teacher has completed five years
of continuous service in the University, and (d) that the permission to do
the same would be given according to seniority. An Assistant Professor
becomes entitled to the senior scale after completion of eight years of
service. However, the senior scale becomes applicable to a person get-
ting Ph.D. degree after five years instead of eight years.
E
The respondent was a Ph.D. student under the Department of
Agriculture of the appellant-University for a course. of study available
in several other institutions, which he was required to complete in six
semesters, with entitlement for extension by two semesters each on the
recommendation of the Adviser and the Dean respectively. Sub-
F sequently, he was appointed Assistant Professor in the said University.
He had by then completed seven semesters. He was pennitted by the
Dean to register for the eighth semester without the knowledge that he
bad become an employee of the University. However, thereafter he was 1

refused permission by the Vice-Chancellor to register for the ninth
semester on the ground that having become an employee of the
G University he was not entitled to that benefit.

In the writ petition challenging the said refusal the High Court by
a majority found that the respondent was not an in-service candidate as
he had already completed eight semesters and directed the Vice-
Chancellor to register him for the ninth and the tenth semesters.
773

Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
A
HELD: The respondent could not escape from the statutory res- ..
. trictions which' became applicable to him as sO<ln as he became an
. in-service candidate for the remaining part of the Ph.D. course on his
taking up of the appointment in the University. The benefit claimed if
__,.·granted to him alone wonld result in his getting consequential benefits B
much before his several seniors and would seriously prejudice their ·
claim and amount to an act of discrimination. Such a course is
'( · impermissible. l776D-E] ·
.. CIVIL APPELLA1E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3951
·of 1990. ·
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1990 of the Himachal
y Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 12 of 1990.
V.A. Bobde, A.K.Sanghi and S. Mudaliar for the Appellants.
D
Dr. Y.S/Chitale, Mrs. Sadhna Ramachandran and Jagan Mohan
Rao for the Respondent. ·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

~ - . VERMA, J. Special leave granted/ E

Respondent, Raj Kumar Thakur, was a student fa the Post-
graduate Doctoral Programme as a Ph.D. scholar with his subject for
doctoral study "Breeding of Honey Bees-A-Mellifera for Honey
production through Artificial Insemination" which is a subject under
the Department of Agriculture of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of F
Horticulture & Forestry and is a course of study available in several
other institutions in the country. The respondent was registered for
this course in 1985 and .was required to complete the. same. in six
semesters with entitlement for extension by two more semesters by the
Dean on the recommendation of the Adviser and for a further exten-
sion of two more semesters by the Vice-Chancellor of the Dr. Y.S. G
Parmar University of Horticulture an.d Forestry on the recommenda-
tion of the Dean. The respondent oompleted seven semesters as a
. student and registered for the eighth semester on 24.7.1989 as a stu-
'·y dent of the University. However, during this period respondent was
appointed as Assistant Scientist in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 vide
letter of appointment dated 26.7.1989. The Dean by order dated H •
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

27. 7.1989 permitted the respondent to register for the eighth semester.
A
This permission of the Dean was granted without the knowledge of the
respondent having become an employee of the University as a result
of the appointment Ieiter dated 26.7.1989. The respondent joined the
post ofAssistant Scientist pursuant to this appointment on 29.7.1989.
The respondent thereafter applied for a further extension of his regist-
B ration for· the course for the ninth semester. The Vice-Chancellor vide
· his order dated 22.11.1989 refused the permission on the ground that
the respondent having become an employee of the University, was not
entitled to that benefit in accordance with the provisions applicable.
The restrictions in regard to an employee/teacher of the University for
t.he purpose are as under:
c "(a) An employee/teacher of the University is permitted
to undertake doctoral programme only in subjects for
which facilities in other Universities in the country are not y
available. Forestry being one such subject in the petitioner
University. The course of study of the respondent viz.
D Agriculture, is however, available in numerous other
( institutions and Universities in the country.

(b). An employee/teacher is required to take study leave
and the same is admissible for pursuing approved courses
outside the University only. It is only in cases where .1
E facilities for the course of study which is not available else- ~
where in the country, an in-service teacher is permitted to
··undertake the same in the petitioner University.

(c) Study leave is not granted as a matter of right and can
be granted only after the employee/teacher has completed
F five years of continuous service in the University.
'·--,
"·" ( d) Considering the number of employees aspiring to do ·
···........ · docioral programme the permission to do the "same is given
~ccording to seniority."

G i An employee of the University "ould be required to complete
. the Ph.D. within eight years of recruitment failing which increments
are not admissible tiU completion of the course. An employee who is
Assistant Professor or holds an equivalent post, the respondent being
--. in that category, normally becomes entitled to the senior scale of
Rs.3000-5000 after completion of eight years of service. However, in
H case of an employee obtaining the Ph.D. degree the senior scale be-
Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY v. R.K. TIIAKUR (VERMA, J.] 775

c": · comes applicable after five years instead of eight years. On completion
A
of eight years in the senior scale an employee/teacher is promoted to
the next higher rank of reader. Thus, a person getting a Ph.D. degree .
gets the senior scale .earlier arid consequently he is also promoted '
earlier to the post of reader. There are 24 other employees who are
senior to the respondent and are awaiting completion of their five
'
_.o years service for doing the doctoral programme and there are eight B
· other employees who joined initially with the Ph.D. degree and are
awaiting completion of five years for getting the senior scale. The
consequence of grantin~ permission to the respondent for registration

- to the ninth semester would be to confer on the respondent the benefit
which is not available to an employee of the University because of the
aforesaid restrictions and this would result in giving a benefit to the
respondent contrary to the provisions applicable while denying the
c
same to others who· are seni<>r to the respondent in employment.
According to the appellants this was the reasi:Jn for refusal by the
Vice-Chancellm of the permission sought by the respondent.

The respondent challenged this ·refusal of the permission to him D
by the Vice-;Chancellor by order dated 22.11.89 in the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in C.W.P. No. 12 of 1990. By the impugned judg-
/ men! dated 10.4.1990, the Full Bench of the High Court by maj01ity
allowed the writ petition and directed the Vice~Chancellor to register
. the respondent for-the remaining tWo semesters, namely, the ninth arid
1
_,.. the tenth semesters. Hence, this appeal by special leave. · E

The grievance of the appellants is that the result of the impugned
majority judgment of the High Court ~ould be that though the respon-
dent is an employee/teacher of the University he would be doing.
research in a subject in which otherWise employees of the University
are not permitted; the respond;nt would get the senior scale earlier F
and also be promoted to the P'1St of Reader much before 24 persons
>· - senior to him who are awaiting their turn in the order of seniority to
undertake the doctoral programme after completion of the requisite
five years service which is contrary to the sta!tttory provisions; and the
24 other employees senior to the respondent would be adversely af-
fected even without being parties in the writ'petition. G

The statutory provisions applicable to the case and their meaning
.is not in controversy. The only controversy is whether the respondent
Y caii be treated as an employee or iri:service candidate for the Ph.D.
course on these facts so as to attract the restrictions which are relied on
by the University for refusing the permission for registration to the H
•

'
. J'
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

.A ninth and tenth semesters sought by the respondent. The majority f
opinion in the impugned judgment takes the view that the respondent
is not an in-service candidaie for this purpose as he has already comp-
leted eight semesters and requires only two or three months to comp-
~" lete the Ph.D. course. The majority has also bee" 'nt1uer,ced by the
B fact that refusal of permission for completing the course at this stage
would' be hard on the: respondent. The minority view of Bhawani )..___
·Singh, J ., is, that on appointment to a teaching post in the University;
the_ respondent incurred the disability and attracted the restrictions _--.'.-
which are ·applicable to all employees of the University irrespective of I
the consequence flowing from it. In our opinion, the minority judg-
ment of Bhawani Singh, J.; on this point and the conclusion reached by
C him that the respondent attracted the restrictions attaching to all
· employees of the University on his appointment as a teacher of the
University is the correct view and the respondent cannot escape from
: the statutory restrictions which became applicable to him as soon as he '(
·became an in-service candidate for the. remaining part of the Ph.D.
D course on his taking up of the appointment in the University. The
further fact that the benefit claimed by the respondent, if granted,
.would result in the respondent getting consequential benefits much
· before his several seniors as a result" of this permission alone cannot
also be overlooked. It is not a case of merely giving some benefit to the
respondent even by relaxation of some statutory provisions without
E causing any prejudice to anyone else but a case where such a benefit
granted to the respondent alone from amongst a large number of +.
employees of the University would also seriously prejudice their claim
and amount to an act of discrimination. Obviously, such a course is
impermissible. This is the consequence of the High Court judgment
and·, therefore, it must be set aside.
F
- Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment.
dated 10.4.1990 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in C. W.P. No.
-12 of 1990 is set aside. No costs.

R.S.S. Appeal allowed.