SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4079 OF 2020
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO. 8088 OF 2020)
Registrar Karnataka University & Anr.
Appellant(s)
Versus
Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr.
Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R.Subhash Reddy,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal is filed by the Karnataka
University, at Dharwad, through its Registrar and
another, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
02.01.2020, passed in writ appeal No.100436 of 2019, by
the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
3. By the aforesaid Order, Division Bench of High Court
has dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants
herein, calling in question the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 100353 of 2018
(S-PRO) dated 13.03.2019 allowing the writ petition and
declaring that the effective date of “Career Advancement
1
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
Scheme” (for short ‘CAS’) promotion of the first
respondent-writ petitioner was 01.01.2009 and also
directed to grant all consequential benefits to him, as
flow from such fixation. In fact, the CAS promotion was
already given to the first respondent- writ petitioner
and pay fixation has already been made, but it was from
the date of 28.10.2013.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that, the
first respondent-writ petitioner had claimed his
promotion under CAS, promulgated by the UGC, to be given
effect from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013, from which
date, promotion is given to the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner was earlier working as an Associate Professor,
in J.S.S College, which is affiliated to Karnataka
University. In pursuance of syndicate Resolution No.24
dated 26.10.2013, the writ petitioner was appointed as an
Associate Professor in the P.G. Department of Studies in
Mathematics in the University. Pursuant to his
appointment, he joined in the service of the University
on 28.10.2013 and vide order dated 31.12.2015, his
service was confirmed with effect from 28.10.2013.
5. By issuing Circular dated 04.07.2013, the University
invited applications for promotion, from eligible
Assistant Professors, Associate professor and Professor
(stage 5) under CAS. The first respondent-writ petitioner
made an application in response to the said Circular, for
2
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
promotion to the post of Professor under UGC, CAS. He
appeared for interview on 12.08.2014 before the Board of
Appointment (BOA), which has recommended his case for
promotion and accordingly promotion order was issued on
16.02.2016, promoting the writ petitioner as a Professor,
with effect from 28.10.2013, that is, from the date of
his eligibility, to the said post. He has been promoted
to the post of Professor with effect from 28.10.2013,
taking into consideration his past three years of service
in previous college, where he worked as Associate
Professor. The claim of the first respondent- writ
petitioner in the High Court was that as he has completed
three years of service in the cadre of Associate
Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009, as such, he
ought to have been considered for promotion under CAS
from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013. During the
relevant time, neither he was in the service of the
University nor working in any of the constituent Colleges
of the University, but he was in service of J.S.S
College, Dharwad, which is an affiliated College to the
Dharwad University. The first respondent- writ petitioner
made representations dated 18.03.2016 and 25.07.2016, in
this regard, for which, he was replied by the University
on 04.08.2017. The claim of the writ petitioner, for
grant of CAS promotion from 01.01.2009, was placed before
the Syndicate of the University, and the Syndicate in its
3
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
meeting held on 19.07.2017, vide Resolution No.36, has
rejected the claim, stating that there is no provision to
grant the said benefit from 01.01.2009, as claimed. In
accordance with the Resolution of the Syndicate, an
endorsement came to be issued by the University on
04.08.2017, a copy which was served on the writ
petitioner.
6. Challenging the Resolution of the Syndicate of the
University, bearing Resolution No. 36, dated 19.07.2017
and the endorsement dated 04.08.2017, the first
respondent has filed writ petition No. 100353 of 2018
before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench,
questioning the aforesaid resolution, endorsement and by
seeking further consequential directions to fix the
eligibility date from 01.01.2009 for promotion to the
post of Professor under CAS, in mathematics, instead of
28.10.2013 and to reconsider his representation dated
10.08.2017. The claim of the first respondent-writ
petitioner was opposed, by filing the written note of
objections in the High Court but the learned Single Judge
of the High Court, by Order dated 13.03.2019, allowed the
writ petition, by recording a finding that the writ
petitioner completed three years of teaching by
01.01.2009, as such effective date should have been
01.01.2009. Learned Single Judge of the High Court was of
the view that his service in affiliated College is also
4
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
to be considered for the purpose of promotion under CAS
and consequently writ petitioner is entitled for
promotion from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.
7. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge,
the appellants herein preferred the writ appeal in writ
appeal No. 100436 of 2019 and by Order dated 02.01.2020,
the said writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the Order
of the learned Single Judge, by recording a finding that
the magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the
wordings ”University/Colleges”, as found in Clause 12.7
of the Statute. The Division Bench has held that the word
‘colleges’ used in the Statute, not only includes
constituent colleges, but also includes other colleges,
which are affiliated to Karnataka University.
8. We have heard Sri Kirit Javali, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-University and Sri Siddarath
Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the first
respondent- writ petitioner.
9. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we
have perused the impugned order and other material placed
on record.
10. It is contended by learned counsel for the
appellants that, it is an admitted position that, prior
to joining the appellant- University, respondent No.1-
writ petitioner was working as Associate Professor from
01.01.2006 till 23.10.2013 (with an affiliated College)
5
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
and thereafter, he joined the University as Assistant
Professor. It is submitted that at the time of
recruitment, respondent No.1 did not apply for the post
of Professor, as he was well aware that he was not
eligible for the same. The writ petitioner was promoted
as Professor vide Order dated 26.10.2013, he joined the
University service with effect from 28.10.2013. It is
submitted that the effective date of promotion of
respondent No.1, for the post of Professor, cannot be
from any date prior to 28.10.2013, as at that point of
time, he was admittedly not in the employment of
University. Further it is brought to the notice by the
learned counsel that very preamble of the statute makes
it clear that the candidate must have been on the rolls
of the University or a Constituent College. It is further
submitted that the benefit of Clause 17 of the Statute
was duly given to respondent No.1, and his previous
service was considered for promotion, but as he was not
in the effective service of the University, the
University has rightly given the effective date from
28.10.2013. It is submitted that as per the statute
framed by the University, the incumbent teacher was
required to be on the rolls of the ‘constituent College’
only and not ‘affiliated College’. It is submitted that
interpretation accorded to the statute by the High Court,
6
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
is improper, as is evident from the meaningful reading of
complete statute, as well as the preamble thereof.
11. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri
Siddarath Bhatnagar, appearing for the first respondent
has submitted that the Statute framed by the University
for effecting promotions in CAS, applies to Professors,
Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Principals of
Constituent Colleges, Directors of Physical education and
Librarians and allied posts. It is submitted that the
term “principals of Constituent Colleges”, ought to be
read disjunctively, as against the other posts, mentioned
in the provision, since it appears only qua a category of
principals and not other posts. By referring to the
definition under Section 2(2) of Karnataka State
Universities Act, 2000, it is submitted that term
“College” includes ‘Constituent College’ as well as
‘affiliated College’. It is further submitted that as the
High Court has correctly interpreted the relevant statute
and has recorded a finding that the effective date of
promotion should have been 01.01.2009 instead of
28.10.2013, there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court.
12. Before we consider the rival submissions made by the
learned counsels on both sides, we deem it appropriate to
refer to certain relevant provisions of the statute,
governing the direct recruitment, promotion under CAS,
7
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
framed by the University. The preamble and the title of
the statute, read as under:
“PREAMBLE: Consequent upon the extension of UGC
pay scales as revised from 01.01.2006 in
respect of Teachers, Librarians and Physical
education Personnel of Universities and
Constituent Colleges and issuance of letter No.
1-32/2006-U II/UI-I (i) dated 31.12.2008 of the
Government of the India, Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Department of Higher
Education, New Delhi and Notification No.F-3-
1/2009 (PS) dated 23.09.2009 of the University
Grants Commission New Delhi and Government of
Karnataka Order No. ED 37 UNE 2009, Bangalore
dated 24.12.2009 prescribing the revised norms
of recruitment and qualification for
appointment and promotion of Professors,
Associate Professors, Assistant Professors,
Physical Education Directors and Librarians, it
has become imperative to frame the statutes for
recruitment and promotion of the above
mentioned personnel in the Karnatak University,
Dharwad.
TITLE: Statute governing the direct
recruitment, promotion under Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) and conduct of interview to the
posts of Professors, Associate Professors,
Assistant Professors, Principals of Constituent
Colleges, Directors of Physical Education and
Librarians under Section 40(1)(k) of KSU Act,
2000.”
13. Clause 12 of the Statute deals with the Screeningcum-Evaluation Committee for CAS Promotion. Clauses 12.6
and 12.7 of the statute read as under:
“12.6 CAS promotions being a personal promotion
to the incumbent teacher holding a substantive
sanctioned post, on superannuation of the
individual incumbent, the said post shall
revert back to its original cadre.
12.7 The incumbent teacher must be on the role
and active service of the University/Colleges
on the date of consideration by the Selection
Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion.”
8
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
14. Clause 13 of the statute deals with the Stages of
Promotion under CAS of Incumbent and Newly Appointed
Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors.
Clauses 13.7 and 13.8 of the statute, read as under:
“13.7 Assistant Professors completing three
years of teaching in third grade (stage 3) shall
be eligible, subject to the qualifying
conditions and the API based PBAS requirements
prescribed by this Statute, to move to the next
higher grade (stage 4) and to be designated as
Associate Professor.
13.8 Associate Professor completing three
years of service in stage 4 and possessing a
Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be
eligible to be appointed and designated as
Professor and be placed in the next higher grade
(stage 5), subject to
(a) satisfying the required
credit points as per API based PBAS
methodology provided in Table I-III
of Annexure-I stipulated in this
Statute, and
(b) an assessment by a duly
constituted selection committee as
suggested for the direct recruitment
of Professor. Provided that, no
teacher, other than those with a
Ph.D., shall be promoted or
appointed as Professor.”
15. Clause 17 of the statute provides for Counting of
Past Service for Direct Recruitment and Promotion Under
CAS. A comprehensive reading of the statute makes it very
clear that for the purpose of granting CAS promotion, the
incumbent teacher must have holding a substantive
9
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
sanctioned post, as much as CAS promotion being a
personal promotion to the incumbent teacher and on
superannuation of the individual incumbent, the said post
shall revert back to its original cadre. It is also clear
that the incumbent teacher must be on the “roll and
active services of the University or the College”, on the
date of consideration by the Selection Committee for
selection under CAS Promotion. A harmonious reading of
Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute read with the
Preamble thereof, makes it clear that the term “College”
used in the said statute is referable to only Constituent
College but not affiliated College.
16. The High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect
namely, that the first respondent was not in actual
service of the University or of the constituent College,
has ordered to extend the benefit from 01.01.2009, on the
ground that he has completed three years of service, by
working as Assistant Professor in Mathematics in UGC pay
scale with effect from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009. There
cannot be any promotion in the University for the period
where the writ petitioner was not in effective service of
the University. The University is not expected to order
promotion for the period when he was working in
affiliated college. The High Court, by mere mathematical
calculation, by basing on the service certificate which
is “Annexure D” before the High Court, has held that as
10
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
he has completed three years of service as Assistant
Professor in UGC scale and therefore the effective date
of promotion should be 01.01.2009 and not 28.10.2013, as
granted by the University. Further, the High Court has
fell in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of
the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word
“colleges”, by extending to “affiliated college”. Even
the Division Bench has also committed the same error by
recording a finding that a magnanimous interpretation is
to be given for the wordings University/Colleges, as used
in the paragraph/clause 12.7 of the Statute. The
University has correctly interpreted the various clauses
of the Statute and by giving the benefit of past service,
has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry
into the service of the University. It is also to be
noticed that at the time of appointment itself, though
the writ petitioner has completed three years of service,
fully knowing that he was not eligible for appointment as
a Professor, he has not claimed the post of Professor.
Even the representations filed by the writ petitioner
indicate that he claimed notional service, in spite of
the same, the High Court, by misconstruing the statute
contrary to its objectives, as mentioned in the preamble
liberally construed, going beyond the scope of the
statute and granted all consequential benefits, by
11
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
declaring that the effective date for promotion was to be
01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.
17. We do not find any substance in the argument made by
the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents,
that the term “principals of Constituent Colleges” ought
to be read disjunctively as against the other posts
mentioned in the provision. If it is to be read in the
manner as sought to be argued by learned counsel, same
will run contrary to the objectives and preamble of the
statute itself. Even the submission of the learned
counsel relying on the definition under Section 2(2) of
Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, also does not
render any assistance to support his case. Karnataka
State Universities Act, 2000, applies to all the
colleges, which includes private college. Even private
colleges have to seek affiliation from the jurisdictional
University, as such the College is widely defined in the
Act. Said definition cannot be readily imported, as
defined, for the purpose of grant of promotions under
CAS. For the purpose of grant of promotions under CAS,
the word ‘College’ is to be interpreted, keeping in mind,
the preamble of the statute, governing promotions.
18. In that view of the matter, we are of the clear view
that, the incumbent teacher, who is entitled for
promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only
from the entry of service of such incumbent into the
12
SLP(C) No. 8088/2020
University. Though the earlier service is to be counted
for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion, but
effective date for all purposes is only from the date of
entry of first respondent into the University service,
i.e, 28.10.2013. The University is not expected to grant
promotion, covering the period, anterior to the entry of
service of the first respondent into University. As such,
we are of the view that the University has rightly given
the benefit of promotion from 28.10.2013.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil appeal is
allowed, and judgment and Order dated 02.01.2020, passed
by the High Court in writ appeal No. 100436 of 2019
(S-PRO), is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently
the writ petition filed by the first respondent in writ
petition No. 100353 of 2018 (C-PRO) stands dismissed. No
order as to costs.
..................J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
..................J.
[R.SUBHASH REDDY]
..................J.
[M.R.SHAH]
New Delhi;
DECEMBER 17, 2020
13
