Service Law:
Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS Promotion) – Under statute framed under Karnataka State University Act – To the post of Professor – Eligibility date – Incumbent teacher joined the constituent college of the University on 28.10.2013 as Associate Professor – Prior to that, he was working as Associate Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009 in the affiliated college of the University – CAS promotion granted to the post of Professor from 28.10.2013 – Writ Petition claiming his promotion from 01.01.2009 on the ground that on 01.01.2009 he had completed eligibility criteria – Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court allowed his case and directed to grant him promotion from 01.01.2009 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: For the purpose of grant of CAS promotions, the word “College” is to be interpreted, keeping in mind the preamble of the relevant statute, governing promotions and not the definition of “College” u/s. 2(2) of the Act – A harmonious reading of Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute r/w Preamble thereof makes it clear that the term “College” is referable to only “Constituent College” and not “Affiliated College” – Therefore, the incumbent teacher is entitled to promotion only from the date of entry of service into the University and not covering the period anterior thereto – 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 – Preamble; Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 – Karnataka State University Act, 2000 – s. 2(2). Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, applies to all the colleges, including private college. Even private colleges have to seek affiliation from the jurisdictional University, as such the College is widely defined in the Act. Definition u/s. 2(2) of the Act 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. [Para 17][868-A-B]
2. A comprehensive reading of the statute makes it very clear that for the purpose of granting CAS promotion, the incumbent teacher must have been holding a substantive sanctioned post. 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. [Para 15][866-F-H]
3. 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. There cannot be any promotion in the University for the period, when 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. [Para 16][867-A-B]
4. 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 declaring that the effective date for promotion was to be 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013. The High Court has fallen in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word “colleges”, by extending the meaning to “affiliated college”. Even the Division Bench has 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. [Para 16][867-D-F]
5. Therefore, 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 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. [Para 18][868-C-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.