PROFESSOR S.N. SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner/Professor Sh. S.N. Singh seeking benefit of promotion to the post of Professor w.e.f. 06.07.1992 when the petitioner completes ten years of service as a Reader in Law Centre II of the respondent/University of Delhi. Petitioner stood promoted as a Professor in October 1996 but the petitioner claims that the promotion to Professor be made effective from 06.07.1992. The issue in this petition is therefore, limited to the claim for monetary benefits of the post of Professor from July, 1992 to October 1996. The case as set up by the petitioner and the counter -affidavit filed by the respondent shows that the following admitted position emerges: -

(2.) THE petitioner does not dispute that he exercised the option under the 1983 Scheme as modified in 1986 on 24.03.1988. However, this option was an incorrectly exercised option because though the petitioner wanted to be appointed as a Professor by promotion on completing 10 years as Reader, he did not agree to the terms of 1983 scheme as modified by 1986 scheme to take the lesser pay scale as given to the Professor appointed by direct recruitment. An option is validly exercised only if option is exercised in terms of the scheme. If the terms of a scheme states that a person can become a Professor from a Reader after ten years of service as a reader but he will get a lesser pay scale than a Professor appointed by direct recruitment, persons such as present petitioner who exercised the option have to exercise the option in an unqualified manner for becoming a Professor with a lesser pay scale. It may be added that a person, if he does not exercise the option, such person can always seek direct appointment to the post of professor by direct recruitment by appearing before the Selection Committee which does the direct recruitment to the post of a Professor. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefit of the Merit Promotion Scheme 1983 as modified in 1986 because there was no valid option exercised in 1988 by the petitioner in terms of the scheme.

(3.) THE conclusion which emerges from the above stated facts is that the petitioner firstly exercised an option invalidly in 1988 because the option for being valid to claim the benefit of Merit Promotion Scheme, the petitioner had to unconditionally exercise the option for becoming a Professor after 10 years with a lesser pay scale than as given to Professors appointed by direct recruitment, but the petitioner gave only a conditional option of wanting to be appointed as a Professor at a higher pay scale given to those Professors who were appointed by direct recruitment. Not only the first option exercised in 1988 was invalid, even the second option exercised in 1994 was invalid because in this option exercised in 1994, the petitioner stated that this 1994 option be only considered if the earlier 1988 application/option was not on record but since the 1988 application/option of the petitioner was on record, the respondent/University did not consider the 1994 application/option.