LexDR. RASHMI SRIVASTAVA AND DR. B.D. SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. versus VIKRAM UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B DR. RASHMI SRIVASTAVA AND DR. B.D. SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY AND ORS. APRIL 30, 1995 (P.B. SAWANT AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Service Law : Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16 (1) Seniority-Merit C promoted Readers and professors-Ex cadre employees-form a distinct class as compared to direct recruits-Cannot be treated equally with direct recruits-Competition can only be amongst direct recruits-Fixation of inter se seniority between them on the yardstick of continuous officiation was illegal D Madhya Pradesh Vishwavitzyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 : Sections 6(30), 49 and Statute 16(2)-Merit promotion scheme-- Readers and Professors-Not contemplated by the Act-No power to create additional posts for being reserved for merit promotees-flowever, the same E can be created by suitable amendment of the Act. Section 19-Merit promoted Readers and Professors-Cannot claim any inter se seniority and promotion with direct recruits-However, their pay, work and status would remain at par with direct recruits. F The appellants were promoted professors and Readers under a merit promotion scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission. The respondents were appointed to the posts or professors and Readers on subsequent dates as direct recruits. The University published a seniority list in which the appellants were shown as senior to the respondents. The G respondents flied a writ petition before the High Court challenging the said placement in the seniority list which was allowed. Aggrieved by the judg· ment or the High Court the appellants preferred the present appeals. On behalf or the appellants it was contended that Section 49 or the Madhya Pradesh Visbwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 took in its sweep even H departmental candidates; that some universities had issued Ordinances 572 RASHMI SRIVASTAVA v. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY 573 creating new source of recruitment by departmental promotion of univer- A ~ity teachers; that merit promotion scheme was formulated to avoid stag· nation and heart burning; that the merit promotion scheme was a temporary extension of the cadre of Professor or Reader; that as per statute 16(2) of the Act the seniority of merit promotee Professor or Reader should be determined on the basis of length of continuous service B in the concerned cadre; that the merit promotees, having been selected by the same selection committee for direct recruits, could not be dis· criminated against in the matter of fixation of inter se seniority; that under Section 6 read with Section 34 of the Act the university had power to create posts of Readers and Professors through promotion; that the University Grants Commission had left the question of fixation of inter se seniority or C merit promotees and direct recruits to the University; that on doctrine of promissory estoppel merit promotees should be treated at par with direct recruits; and that once the concerned incumbents were promoted as Readers or Professors they were entitled to work as snch and draw the same pay as directly recruited Readers and Professors. D On behalf of the respondents it was contended that Section 49 of the act did not contemplate any promotion; that the merit promotion scheme which was formulated later on could not be encompassed by Section 49 or the Act; that there could not be a combined seniority list or merit promotees and direct recruits as the former stood outside the cadre; that E merit promotees formed a separate distinct class as compared to direct recruits; that there was a difference in the pay scales of merit promotees and direct recruits; that the merit promotion was a personal promotion to the promotee which ceased with his employment; that the merit promotees were ex-cadre employees and could not be treated equally with direct recruits for seniority; that unless the Act is amended there would be no question of merit promotees entering tJte cadre of direct recruits; that compensation be awarded to the respondent fo~ harassment by the Univer- sity; and that the pay scales of merit promotees be reduced .. F Dismissing the appeal, this Court G HELD : 1. The promotee Readers and Professors do not fall in "the same class as directly recruited Readers and Professors. The following distinct characteristics _between merit promotees and direct recruits Readers and Professors become at once visible : H 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R. A (i) T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.