K KUSUMA BAI Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the alteration of inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents 2 to 4 and giving earlier dates to them in Order No.MR-67/182/99/Admn.m, dated 17.2.2002 by the first respondent as illegal, violative of U.G.C. Guidelines, 1998, G.O. Ms. No.208, dated 29.6.1999 and provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she was regularly appointed as Lecturer with the first respondent in the year 1984 and she was selected as Reader/Associate Professor in the year 1991. She received many laurels and the articles written by her were published in many journals. In the classified list of officers and teachers issued by the first respondent, her name is shown at S1. No.7 and the second respondent is at SI. No.8. The respondents 3 and 4, who were appointed later and promoted as Associate Professors under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), are at Sl. Nos.14 and 15 respectively. It is further submitted that the Statement Governments have to follow the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) from time to time and the Universities and Management Colleges should make necessary changes in their statutes, rules and regulations in accordance with the guidelines of the UGC. The Associate Professors/Readers who complete minimum of 8 years service are automatically promoted as Professors under CAS. The State Government issued G.O. Ms. No.208 Higher Education (UE.n.l) Department, dated 29.6.1999 adopting UGC pay scales, under which the post of Professor under CAS must be filled by direct recruitment by All India advertisement and promotion from the post of Reader after 8 years of service. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for appointment as Professor under CAS and after screening by the selection committee, the first respondent issued the impugned orders dated 17.2.2001 appointing the petitioner, respondents 2 to 4 and others as Professors. But, surprisingly, third respondent was shown at sl.no.1, and the respondents 2 and 4 at Sl.Nos.3 and 4, and the petitioner at Sl.No.5, in the list. She submits that there is no provision in CAS for altering inter se seniority. Hence, she prays to set aside the impugned orders.

(3.) The counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is contended that the petitioner constructed this writ petition on the classified list published by the University. But, the classified list is not a seniority list. It is further submitted that depending on the suitability, the selected candidates are placed in order and so, the petitioner can not have any grievance in this respect. In pursuance of the implementation of UGC guidelines on CAS vide G.O. Ms. No.208, the first respondent-university devised a scheme approved by its Executive Council on 20.12.2000 and the UGC also approved the selections made thereafter. It is further submitted that the seniority of the teachers appointed as Professors is as per the order of merit/suitability decided by the Committee as finally approved by the Executive Council. The impugned orders dated 17.2.2001 were issued as per the merit list prepared by the selection committee and finally as may be resolved by the Executive Council. Therefore, there are no grounds to grant the relief sought for and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.