DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY AND ANR. versus RAJ KUMAR THAKUR

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 17-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE 
AND FORESTRY AND ANR. 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR THAKUR 
AUGUST 17, 1990 
[L.M. SHARMA AND J .S. VERMA, JJ.] 
Y.S. Parmar University-Ph.D. student appointed Assistant 
Professor-Whether an in-service candidate-Whether entitled to exten-
sion of semesters. 
The grant of permission to an in-service teacher of the appellant-
University to undertake doctoral programme is subject to the statutory 
restrictions; (a), that the course of study is not available in other institu-
tions and universities, (b) that the study leave would be admissible for 
pursuing approved courses outside the University only, (c) that the 
D study leave would be granted after the teacher has completed five years 
of continuous service in the University, and (d) that the permission to do 
the same would be given according to seniority. An Assistant Professor 
becomes entitled to the senior scale after completion of eight years of 
service. However, the senior scale becomes applicable to a person get-
ting Ph.D. degree after five years instead of eight years. 
E 
The respondent was a Ph.D. student under the Department of 
Agriculture of the appellant-University for a course. of study available 
in several other institutions, which he was required to complete in six 
semesters, with entitlement for extension by two semesters each on the 
recommendation of the Adviser and the Dean respectively. Sub-
F 
sequently, he was appointed Assistant Professor in the said University. 
He had by then completed seven semesters. He was pennitted by the 
Dean to register for the eighth semester without the knowledge that he 
bad become an employee of the University. However, thereafter he was 
1 
refused permission by the Vice-Chancellor to register for the ninth 
semester on the ground that having become an employee of the 
G 
University he was not entitled to that benefit. 
In the writ petition challenging the said refusal the High Court by 
a majority found that the respondent was not an in-service candidate as 
he had already completed eight semesters and directed the Vice-
Chancellor to register him for the ninth and the tenth semesters. 
I 
~ 
-
. -.J 
.. 
773 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
A 
HELD: The respondent could not escape from the statutory res- .. 
. trictions which' became applicable to him as sO<ln as he became an 
. in-service candidate for the remaining part of the Ph.D. course on his 
taking up of the appointment in the University. The benefit claimed if 
__,.·granted to him alone wonld result in his getting consequential benefits 
B 
much before his several seniors and would seriously prejudice their · 
claim and amount to an act of discrimination. Such a course is 
'( · impermissible. l776D-E] · 
CIVIL APPELLA1E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3951 
·of 1990. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1990 of the Himachal 
y Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 12 of 1990. 
V.A. Bobde, A.K.Sanghi and S. Mudaliar for the Appellants. 
Dr. Y.S/Chitale, Mrs. Sadhna Ramachandran and Jagan Mohan 
Rao for the Respondent. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ -
. VERMA, J. Special leave granted/ 
Respondent, Raj Kumar Thakur, was a student fa the Post-
graduate Doctoral Programme as a Ph.D. scholar with his subject for 
doctoral study "Breeding of Honey Bees-A-Mellifera for Honey 
production through Artificial Insemination" which is a subject under 
c 
D 
E 
the Department of Agriculture of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of 
F 
Horticulture & Forestry and is a course of study available in several 
other institutions in the country. The respondent was registered for 
this course in 1985 and .was required to complete the. same. in six 
semesters with entitlement for extension by two more semesters by the 
Dean on the recommendation of the Adviser and for a further exten-
sion of two more semesters by the Vice-Chancellor of the Dr. Y.S. 
G 
Parmar University of Horticulture an.d Forestry on the recommenda-
tion of the Dean. The respondent oompleted seven semesters as a 
. 
student and registered for the eighth semester on 24.7.1989 as a stu-
'·y dent of the University. However, during this period respondent was 
appointed as Assistant Scientist in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 vide 
letter of appointment dated 26.7.1989. The Dean by order dated 
H 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
'·--, 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
27. 7.1989 permitted the respondent to register for the eighth semester
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.