LexDR. KM. SUMAN AGARWAL versus THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
DR. KM. SUMAN AGARWAL
v.
THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 29, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
U.P. State Universities Act 1973, S. 3l(A) r/w Statutes ll.12B(l), (6)
and (ll)(i)-Appointment of Respondent as Reader under personal promo-
tion schem&-Whether forms part of the cadre of Readers-Held, yes : but
C would be only temporary addition to the cadre.
U.P. State Unive;sities Act 1973, S.31(A) r/w Statutes 17.05 (b}-fnter
se seniority-Respondent appointed as Reader by personal promotion earlier
to appellant recruited directly-Held, Respondent is senior to appellant; rela-
tive seniority of candidates from two streams fused into the relevant cadre as
D Reader.
Appellant SA was in July 1987 appointed as Reader by Direct recruit-
ment in the Home Science Institute, Agra University. Respondent HK
appointed initially as lecturer in 1968 was in February 1985 appointed
E Reader under the personal promotion scheme. When the Director
proceeded on long leave, HK sought temporary appointment to the said
post und;r liause 4A (C) of the Ordinance which provided that the next
senior ny/st teacher shall discharge the functions of a Director. With the
University not acceding to her request and the Vice Chancellor appointing
a committee instead, HK filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court.
F
SA sought and was allowed impleadment.
G
The High Court held that HK being the senior-most teacher was
entitled to be temporarily in-charge of the post of Director leaving open
the question of inter se seniority between HK and SA.
Before this Court SA contended that by operation of S.31(A)(3) of
the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 ('Act') and Clause 11.12B (6) of the
Statutes the benefit of personal promotion would be admissible only once
and such Reader did not form part of the cadre. This Court noted that
clause (ll)(i) of Statute 11.12 B stated that the post of reader to which
H personal promotion is made shall be a temporary addition to the cadre
802
i
.
t
S. AGARWAL v. VICE CHANCELLOR
803
and the post shall stand abolished on the incumbent ceasing to occupy it. A
Statute 17.05 (b) provided that in the same cadre inter se seniority of
teachers recruited directly or by personal promotion shall be determined
according to length of continuous service in such cadre.
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Both direct recruits as well as the temporary promotees
on personal promotion would form part of the cadre as Reader or Profes-
sor. But the promotee would only be a temporary addition to the sanc-
tioned quota to which the direct recruit alone is eligible. (p.9) [807-E-F]
B
2. The Respondent HK was senior to the Appellant in the cadre of C
Reader. The relative seniority of the candidates from two streams fused into
the relevant cadre as professor or reader, as the case may be. [810-G;B]
Dr. Bal Krishna AgaTwal v. State U.P., [1995] 1 SCC 614, referred to.
Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram University, [1995] 3 sec 653, ex-
D
plained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11618 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.95 of the Allahabad High E
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 10669 of 1995.
M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant.
S.K. Dhavan and Vijay K. Mehta for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The appellant was a
direct recruit as a Reader and was appointed with effect from July 1987 in G
the Home Science Institute, Agra University. The third respondent Dr.
(Mrs.) Hiru Kumar was appointed as a Lecturer with effect from July 6,
1968 and the she was confirmed on May 13, 1969. She was promoted as a
Reader on February 18, 1985 pursuant to the personal promotion scheme.
On appointment a~ Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand University, Dr. Mrs. H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A S.P. Ragquir proceeded on a long leaye. Consequently, the post of the
Director became vacant. The question then arose as to who is to be
nominated to hold that post temporarily till the Director is appointed. Dr.
(Mrs.) Him Kumar claimed the post, but the University did not accede to
that request. The Vice-Chancellor, to avoid controversy, had appointed a
B Committee headed by Dr. S.V. Pandey and the appellant and the third
respondent as the members, with effect from January 9, 1995. Dr. (Mrs.)
Him Kumar filed a writ petition in the High Court cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.