RAJESHWAR SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, is aggrieved by the denial of promotion to the post of Reader under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) since 2003, and seeks the intervention of this Court for appropriate relief.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition, as projected by the petitioner, may be briefly noticed at the outset. He was initially appointed on 25.7.1990 to the post of Lecturer in Pachhunga University College under the NEHU and was subsequently promoted to the post of Lecturer in the Senior Scale in the Department of Statistics between 25.7.1990 and 30.11.2004. During his tenure at Pachhunga University College, he was called for interview on 10.12.2002 for promotion to the post of Reader under the CAS, but the Selection Committee did not recommend him for the promotion. He was, however, assured that his case for the promotion would be considered again in accordance with the guidelines after the expiry of one year from the date of the last interview, for which he was required to apply afresh. His case for promotion was again duly forwarded by the College to the NEHU for consideration by the Selection Committee. In the meantime, he was on 10.11.2004 transferred to the Permanent Campus of NEHU, Shillong under the Common Pool created for the time being by an exercise of option. He accordingly joined the Campus on 22.2.2005 by assuming the charge of Computer Centre and thereafter joined the Department of Statistics as final placement with the same designation of Lecturer in the Senior Scale. After joining the NEHU at Shillong, the Mizoram University forwarded his Self Appraisal Report to the NEHU for considering his promotion to the post of Reader under the CAS vide the letter dated 16.2.2005. No action was, however, taken in this connection nor was he ever intimated about the fate of his application. He again vide his letter dated 5.12.2005 requested the NEHU authorities to consider his case for promotion to Reader in Statistics under CAS, but nothing was forthcoming till 2008 whereupon he again on 8.4.2008 wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, NEHU complaining about his non-promotion since 2003, but this also turned a cropper.

(3.) THE writ petition is opposed by the University-respondents, who have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. THE case of the respondents is that after the petitioner was not recommended for promotion in 2002, he was asked to submit a fresh application after the lapse of one year, but he did not do so. THE selfappraisal report forwarded by the Mizoram University vide their letter dated 16-2-2005 was processed on 18.3.2005, but the same could not be finalized as cases of all repatriated teachers from Mizoram Campus had been kept in abeyance till finalization of their postings. THE case of the petitioner was ultimately put up in the file on 14.12.2007 for nomination of external experts and his self-appraisal report was dispatched to the external experts on 15.1.2008 for evaluation. However, in the meantime, one of the external experts was out of the country while another had retired from service and in this circumstance, the Vice-Chancellor had to nominate another two external experts for evaluation. THE Selection Committee ultimately constituted by the Vice-Chancellor for considering the promotion interviewed the petitioner in March, 2009 but did not find him suitable. THE Executive Committee in its 136th meeting held on 25.3.2009, therefore, decided not to promote the petitioner to the post of Reader, which was conveyed to him by the letter dated 20.4.2009. THE University-respondents claim that the report of the three external experts on self appraisal report is only a requisite qualification as provided for in OE-15 of NEHU Ordinance, which cannot be equated with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. However, the Selection Committee also took into consideration of the report of the external experts as well as other criteria, but found him unsuitable. THEre is no guideline of the UGC governing CAS of Teachers stipulating that the experts who have evaluated the self-appraisal report should also be the experts in the Selection Committee. On the contrary, it is categorically mentioned by the UGC that the experts who have evaluated the self-appraisal report of Reader for promotion to the post of Professor under the CAS should not be the subject experts in the Selection Committee. THE Selection Committee comprised of experts in the relevant field and such expert used their specialized knowledge and skill in the field to assess the suitability of the candidate: the evaluation of self-appraisal report of the petitioner by external expert cannot be treated as selection but is merely a prescribed criteria to be taken into consideration by the duly constituted Selection Committee. THE University-respondents deny that the recommendation of the Selection Committee is arbitrary and discriminatory, and in any case, making such allegation against the members of the Selection Committee without impleading them as party-respondents in the writ petition renders the writ petition defective and liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. THE answering respondents also deny that the experts in the Selection Committee did not belong to the concerned field of specialization: there was no violation of any notification or instruction/direction or guidelines or scheme of UGC while considering the case of the petitioner. No interference is, therefore, called for. THEse are the sum and substance of the case of the answering respondents.