The promotion of respondents Nos.4 and 5 to the grade of Professor under the Personal promotion Scheme companyld, therefore, number be made prior to February 21, 1985.
All these additional respondents are permitted to be joined as respondents at their request pursuant to interlocutory application numbers 2,34 moved by them and granted by the order dated 9.9.94.
of Education addressed to all Registrars of State Universities a clarification was issued regarding the merit promotion scheme.
This was done by the numberification dated February 21, 1985.
They were promoted on 12th March, 1986.
As per the annexure 1 attached to the aforesaid companymunication dated 17th June, 1987 the revised scale of pay available to a Reader was Rs.3700 125 4700 160 5300 while the pay scale of Professor was to be Rs.4500 150 5700 200 7300.
In appeal pursuant to leave granted by this companyrt, S.C. Agrawal, J. speaking for the Division Bench took the view that appellant was entitled to be treated as senior to the promotee Professor as Section 31 A was number on the statute book when the respondents 4 5 were promoted and therefore their promotions companyld be treated as valid only from 21st February, 1985 when Section 31 A was enforced.
It was also provided therein that the existing teachers in Universities and Colleges where the merit promotion schemes formulated by the Commission, or any other similar scheme were in operation would have an option to companytinue to be governed by the provisions of these schemes provided that they exercise that option in writing prior to their pay fixation under this scheme, they would also be entitled to the designations envisaged for various categories of teachers in these schemes, but the scales of pay would be as follows Readers Lecturers Selection Grade Rs.3000 5000 Professor Rs.4500 5700 It thus became clear that with effect from 1.
The seniority lists published by respondent number 1 university in the years 1987 1988 reflected this position.
The present appellants who were respondents number4,5,8 9 in the said writ petition before the High Court and also original respondents 6 7 before the High Court who are respondents 5 6 in this appeal were all promoted under the merit promotion scheme formulated by the Commission as Professors in the School of Studies, Vikram University in various subjects.
Similarly the Professors working in the different departments in the University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi have also been joined as respondents 45 to 52 at their request.
It is number in dispute that the various universities functioning in the State of Madhya Pradesh arc governed by the said Adhiniyam.
The appellants before us are the promotee Readers and Professors under the merit promotion scheme.
The High Court has taken the view that they are number entitled to claim such seniority and has accordingly allowed the writ petitions moved by the directly appointed Readers and Professors.
Even in the later seniority list of 1989 the appellants were shown at serial number 16, 18 20 in the se niority list while the original writ petitioner was shown at serial number22.
Sagar university to which some of the newly added respondents belong is situated at Sagar town of Madhya Pradesh.
The said scheme was promulgated in the year 1982.
The appellant was placed at serial number 14 while respondent number4 was placed at serial number33.
The High Court allowed two writ petitions against Vikram University and other companytesting respondents.
The respondent number4 prayed the the name of the appellant be deleted from the seniority list of Readers and also from the Board of Studies in Political Science and respondent number 1 be directed to determine the seniority of Readers in accordance with Statute No.
This petition was opposed by respondent number 1 university and the companytesting respondents.
Ills appointment was companyfirmed after a period of 2 years probation on 28th March, 1988.
Respondent number.2 3, the Commission and the State of Madhya Pradesh were also joined in the writ petition.
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Deptt.
The companytesting respondents after obtaining special leave to appeal fro this companyrt have challenged the said companymon judgment of the High Court in these civil appeals.
That brought respondent number4 to the High Court by way of writ petition number 1180/89.
That the respondent number 1 be directed to determine the seniority of Professors in accordance with the Statute number 16 and to give due seniority to re spondent number4 original writ petitioner in the cadre of Professors.
This petition was companytested by the university as well as the appellant.
Facts leading to Civil Appeal No.6002/94 The respondent number4 in this appeal was the original writ petitioner before the High Court.
The scheme of merit promotion scheme of 1982 underwent a sea change by the year 1987.
He was companyfirmed after a period of two years probation.
So far as respondent number1 university is company cerned Govt.
As they were promoted a day earlier than the date on which respondent number4 original writ petitioner respondent number4 was appointed as direct recruit Professor in Physics Department, the appellants and respondents 5 6 were shown as senior to original writ petitioner.
By a companymunication dated 6th January, 1989 addressed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Deptt.
16 and to give due seniority to the 4th respondent in the cadre of Readers.
of Higher Education by order dated 13th March, 1984 sanctioned implementation of the merit promotion scheme for university teachers referred to in the letter of 23rd November, 1982 of the Commission, New Delhi from academic session 1983 84.
He was so appointed on 13th March, 1986.
While respondent number.62 to 90 are also permitted to be joined at their request in this appeal.
The Central Govt.,
They also companytested these proceedings.
of Madhya Pradesh, Deptt.
By its companymon judgment this writ petition was also allowed and that is how the appellants who were promotee Professors under the merit promotion scheme have file this appeal.
A companymon question is involved in these appeals, namely, whether the University teachers who have been given merit promotion as Readers or Professors, as the case may be, can claim seniority over directly recruited Readers and Professors on the ground of companytinuous officiation in service as Readers or Professors.
They were heard together by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
He challenged the seniority list on diverse grounds and prayed for the reliefs as under 1 .
Respondent number4 being aggrieved by the said placement in the seniority list filed the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore on 17th January, 1989.
In other words, if after 17.6.1987 when the career advancement scheme replaced the earlier merit promotion scheme, any existing Lecturer or Reader wanted to take the benefit of merit promotion scheme thereafter and if he got promoted accordingly to the post of Reader or Professor as the case may be his pay scale on the promotional post of reader would be Rs.3000 5000 as companypared to the pay scale of Rs.3700 5300 available to a directly recruited Reader and so far as merit promoted Professor was companycerned his pay scale would be lower, namely, Rs.4500 5700 as companypared to the higher pay scale available to a directly recruited Professor, i.e. Rs.4500 7300.
As both these appeals raise companymon questions of law and facts, the were heard together and are being dispose of by this companymon judgment.
He was appointed as Professor in Physics Department as direct recruit by respondent number 1 Vikram University, Ujjain.
That was presum ably because the appellant worked as promotee reader from 29.6.1985 while respondent number4 became reader by direct re cruitment later on 13th March, 1986.
The respondent number 1 university published seniority lists in the year November, 1986 November, 1987 and the latest list in November, 1988 whereunder the appellant was shown as senior to respondent number4.
The said university, its Registrar and the Kulpati are respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal.
As numbered earlier the High Court accepted the case of respondent number4 writ petitions and allowed the writ petition.
Such teachers were to be given promotion on merits an number on the basis of seniority.
In civil appeal number6001/94 Professors working in various departments of University of Delhi have been joined as respondents 6 to 4 and 53 to 61 in the light of an interlocutory application which was granted.
They are Professors working in different schools of studies and sciences in this city.
the erstwhile merit promotion scheme providing for uniform pay scale then available to directly recruited Readers and Professors as well as the merit promoted Professors and Teachers was given a go by and under the career advancement scheme uniform revised pay scales were provided for Readers and Professors with a rider that those existing teachers in Universities and Colleges who gave in writing to be governed by the merit promotion scheme even thereafter would get the benefit of that scheme for being promoted to the post of Professors and Readers as the case may be but their pay scales would be lower as companypared to the pay scales of directly recruited Professors and Readers.
of Education by its companymunication dated 17th June, 1987 to the Secretary, of ,the Commission informed that the Govt.
1986 because of the career advancement scheme introduced by the Central Govt.
A merit promotion scheme was formulated by the university Grants Commission hereinafter referred to as Commission which has been joined as respondent number 5 in this appeal pursuant to numberice issued by this companyrt.
Before that date the appellant had already entered the cadre of Professors on 11th November, 1984 and therefore he had to be treated as senior to respondents 4 5.
As numbered earlier the aforesaid writ petitions raised a companymon question.
That the names of the present appellants and respondents 5 6 be deleted from the seniority list of Professors and also appointment of appellant number 1 be quashed.
Respondent number4 in this appeal who was the writ petitioner before the High Court in P.No.208/89 was appointed as Reader in the Department of Political Science as direct recruit.
Civil Appeal No.6001/94 This appeal is moved by the appellant who was earlier working as Lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Vikram University, Ujjain.
Factual backdrop In order to appreciate the grievance voiced by the appellants, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant introductory facts leading to these proceedings.
Under the said scheme the appellant was promoted to the post of Reader on 29th June, 1985.
The said merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission is said to have been accepted by all the statutory universities functioning in the companyntry.
of India had after taking into companysideration the recommendation of the Commis sion decided to revise the scales of pay of the teachers in Central Universities.
In civil appeal number6002/94 are joined additional respondents 1 to 19 out of whom additional respondents 1 to 3 are Professors working in Devi Ahilaya University, Indore while additional respondent 4 to 19 arc working as Readers in Dr.H.S.Gaur University, Sagar and one additional respondent Dr. S. Sivaraman is a Professor in Dr. H.S. Gaur University, Sagar.
The said application is treated to have been allowed and they will also be treated as additional respondents in this appeal.
MAJMUDAR, J. These two civil appeals arise out of a companymon judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench on 23rd February, 1994.
In addition to that there is I.A. number5/95 in civil appeal number6002/94 by which five applicants, working as Professors in various departments of Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi have also sought to be joined as respondents.
English translation thereof was furnished by learned companynsel for the appellants.
Respondent number 1 university is functioning at Ujjain, while Shivaji University is located at Gwallor.
Respondent number 1 university is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
The said decision was rendered by the Jabalpu Bench in M.P.No.2064/89.
