BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI AND ANR. versus DR. INDRA PRATAP SINGH

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 24-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI AND ANR. 
\'. 
DR. INDRA PRAT AP SINGH 
JANUARY 24, 1992 
B 
[L.M.SHARMA, V. RAMASWAMI AND B.P.JEEVAN 
REDDY, JJ.] 
l!niversity Grants Couunission-Merit Proniotion Sche1ne-Para 2 
(a)--Object and scope q(. 
C 
University--lect11rer-l'romotion as Reader--/l.eq11irement qf "eight 
years contin11011s se1vice "-Appointment as temporatJ' lecturer in Banaras 
~- . 
Hind11 University--{Jap of 3 months and 20 days in sen'ice-Appointment 
as Reader in Nagpur Unil'ersity----/1.eappointment as permanent lecturer 
in Banaras Hindu University---Claim for promotion as Reader held 
sustainable-/-/eld para 2 (a) recognizes eight years serl'ice in more than 
D 
one University-{lap in service held of the nawre contemplated by para 
2 (a)~\'e1vice rendered in Nagp11r University held liable to be co11nted 
toi.1'ards eight year~~ se111ice. 
With a view to providing an incentive to teachers, preventing 
stagnation and also for improving their efficiency the University 
" 
E 
Grants Commission evolved a scheme called "Merit Promotion Scheme". 
On being selected under the said s~heme a lecturer is designated as 
Reader and becomes entitled to a higher pay scale. One of the con-
ditions under the scheme which a lecturer must satisfy before he 
becomes entitled to promotion is eight years's of continuous service 
of which at least four years should be in the institution where he is 
F 
being considered for promotion. 
G 
H 
The respondent was appointed as a lecturer by the appellant-
University, on temporary basis, on 26.8.1974 in the Department of 
Basic Principles in the Institute of Medical Sciences for a period of 
eleven months. At the end of eleven months, he was re-appointed on 
the same basis for a further period of eleven months. By means of 
such appointments he served as a temporary Lecturer from 26.8.197'1 
till 31.3.1980. There was no re-appointment thereafter and from 
1.4.80 to 20.7.80 he remained. without a job. On 21.7.80 he was 
appointed as a Reader in the Nagpur University where he served till 
20.9.82. On 22.9.82 he was appointed as a permanent lecturer in the 
appellant-University in the same Department where he worked ear-
360 
~ 
BANARAS UNIVERSITY 1·. !JR.LP. SINGH 
361 
---! 
lier temporarily and his salary was fixed by giving him fourteen A 
increments so as to protect his last pay drawn at Nagpur . 
. 
In 1983 the respondent claimed promotion under the Merit 
Promotion Scheme but the University rejected his case on the ground 
that he does not satisfy the requirement of eight years' of continu-
ous service in the cadre because there was a break in his service B 
between 1.4.80 to 20.7.80 and that his service in the Nagpur Univer-
sity cannot be counted. 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court and 
pursuant to.an interim order passed by the High Court the respond-
ent's case was considered by the Selection Committee and the deci- c 
sion of the Committee was kept in a sealed cover. 
The High Court allowed the petition by holding: (i) that the 
respondent's service in the Nagpur University was liable to he counted 
towards the eight years' continuous service because para 2 (a) of the 
scheme expressly recognizes service in more than one University; 
D 
(ii) a long-standing practice of the University was to condone the 
breaks in service in such cases. Consequently the High C.ourt quashed 
the University's· order rejecting respondent's application and di-
reeled the University to place recommendations of the Selection 
Committee before the Executive Council and to promote him as 
Reader if he was approved by the Executive Council. 
E 
The University filed an appeal in this Court contending that (i) 
the High Court erred in holding that the respondent satisfied the 
requirement of eight years' continuous service; (ii) the power of the 
University to condone short breaks in service was exercised in cases 
only where the delays in reappointment were caused by procedural 
F 
)(.__"' 
delays in the office of University; (iii) there was a definite break in 
the respondent's service and such a break has never been condoned 
by the University. 
, 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that para 2 (a) of 
G 
the scheme rccogn!zes a teacher serving two or more Universities 
~ 
for the purposes of "continuous eight years" service; (ii) the re-
• 
qufrement of continuous service should he understood having re-
gard to the underlying aim and object; (iii) In many other 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.