DR. BAL KRISHNA AGARWAL versus STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 10-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. BAL KRISHNA AGARWAL 
v. 
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
~ 
JANUARY 10, 1995 
B 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
SeTVice law-Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973-Section 31-
A-Personal Promotion Scheme-Length of service and qualifications 
)r 
presaibed by Notification dated 21-2-85-Promotion to grade of Professor 
c could only be validly effected from 21-2-1985-'-Clause 18.05-lnter se seniority 
of teachers appointed by personal promotion and by direct recruitment-
Professor in Physics-Detennination of seniority according to length of con-
tinuous selVice in a substantive capacity in such cadre-Service of those 
promoted under Personal Promotion Scheme-To be counted from 21-02-85. 
D 
Constitution of India, 195(}-Article 226-Writ-Availability of altema-
tive remedfParty non-suited by High Court five years after admitting the writ 
,,.(. 
petition-field, not justified. 
The appellant and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were employed as 
E 
Readers in the Physics Department of the Allahabad University. In 1983 
applications were invited for direct recruitment to one permanent post of 
Professor. The appellant was appointed to the post substantively by an 
order dated November 9, 1984. On November 9, 1984, respondents Nos. 4 
and 5 were promoted in the grade of Professor under the Personal Promo· 
tion Scheme which was framed. on December 12, 1983 and came into force 
F 
by amendment to the Act on October 10, 1984. 
i1r· 
The appellant after probation for one year was confirmed on the post 
of professor w.e.f. November 9, 19851 The Seniorty Committee of the 
Faculty of Science considering the inter se seniority of the appellant and 
G 
respondents Nos. 4 and 5 came to the conclusion that the appointments 
on cadre posts and personal promotions cases constituted two different 
categories so as not to be intermingled and should be maintained separate· 
ly and the teachers appointed on cadre P?Sts by direct recruitment should 
~ 
be treated senior to those teachers appointed under Personal Promotion 
Scheme irrespective of their date of appointment. The Seniority Committee 
-
H placed the appellant, who held the cadre post of Professor above respon-
148 
• 
DR.B.K.AGRAWALv. STATE 
149 
dents 4 and 5 who were promoted to the grade of Professor under the A 
Personal Promotion Scheme. 
Respondents 4 and 5 submitted representations before the Executive 
Council against the said decision of the Seniority Committee. The Execu-
tive Council altered the seniorty and placed respondents 4 and 5 above the 
appellant. Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the decision of the 
Executive Council was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that 
alternative remedy of reference to the Chancellor u/s 68 of the Uttar 
Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 was available to the appellant. 
B 
The High Court observed that there was controversy with regard to C 
nature of appointments since the appellant claimed that he . had been 
appointed against a regular vacancy while the respondents asserted that 
all three had been granted personal promotion and that there was also a 
dispute regarding the date on which the appellant joined the post of 
Professor. 
D 
The appellant contended that the High Court was in error in dis-
missing the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of an alternative 
remedy having regard to the fact that the Writ Petition had been filed in 
1988 and it had been admitted and was pending in the High Court for the 
past more than five years. Further, there was no dispute regarding the E 
appellant's selection by the Selection Committee for appointment to the 
permanent post of Professor, which recommendation had been accepted 
by the Executive Council. Also, the appellant's inclusion in the list of 
personal promotees did not mean that his appointment was by way of 
personal permotion and not on the basis of selection for the cadre post F 
which was advertised. 
It was submitted that since the appeUant was appointed on the post 
of Professor on November 9, 1984, the seniority should be regulated by the 
provisions contained in the Statutes of the University as they existed on 
the said date and that the amendments which were made in the Statutes G 
by notification dated February 21, 1985 would have no application in the 
matter of determination of the appellant's seniority. Under clause (b) of 
Statute 18.05, as it stood on November 9, 1984, when the appellant joined 
as Professor, he, holding the

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