THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS.versusRINCYMOL MATHEW

642                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   15 S.C.R. 642              [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A           THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
                                       v.
                            RINCYMOL MATHEW
                        (Civil Appeal No. 8031 of 2022)
B                            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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
                                      642
     THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. v.                          643
               RINCYMOL MATHEW

worked continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter   A
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
                                                                        B
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.      C
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               D
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        E
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]
                                                                        F
      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.
                                                                        G
      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.
                                                                        H
644            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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,
H
     THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. v.                                645
          RINCYMOL MATHEW [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of his powers under Section 10(17)           A
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
                                                                              B
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         C
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.          D
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       E
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             F
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             G
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      H
646            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     – 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
B
      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
C     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
D     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-
E     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
F     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
G           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
H           No. II provided that:
     THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. v.                               647
          RINCYMOL MATHEW [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      (a)   The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower     A
            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)       B
            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                    C
            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           D
            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           E
            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
                                                                             F
            (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          G
            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        H
648              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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.
E

      Devika Gujral                                               Appeal dismissed.




F




G




H