OSMANIA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HYDERABAD, A.P. versus ABDUL RAYEES KHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 25-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS 
REGISTRAR, HYDERABAD, A.P. 
v. 
ABDUL RA YEES KHAN AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 25, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Pramotion-Lecturer to Reader-Merit Promotion Scheme-
C Implementation of-Promotion recommended by expert body-Court not 
to interfere with the selection relating to education affairs-Academic 
matters be left to the expert body to select the best of the talent on objective 
criteria. 
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Mynuddin, (1987) 4 SCC 486 
D & Dr. JP. Kulshrestha & Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors., 
[1980] 3 sec 418, distinguished. 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14548 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. No.1183of1988. 
H.S. Gururaja Rao and T.V. Ratnam for the AppeUant. 
A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan, S. Sadasiva Reddy and Ms. Usha 
Reddy for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division 
H Bench of the Andhra Pradesh, made on October 11, I 995 in Writ Appeal 
6 
-· 
I-
• 
-
OSMANJA UNIVERSITY v. A.R. KHAN 
7 
No. 1183/88. 
A 
The admitted position is that the first respondent and the second 
respondent, G. Manohar Rao, Lecturers of Law in the Post Graduation 
Department of the Faculty of Law ofOsmania University had staked their 
claims for promotion as Reader in the said Department of the Osmania 
University. The University Grants Commission had recommended the B 
procedure for evaluation of the merits of the candidates for selection as 
Readers and Professors as under: 
"'Objectives" 
I. The basic objectives of the scheme should be (I) to recognise C 
outstanding work done by the university teachers in the areas of 
teaching and research (2) subject such work to objective 
evaluation by experts in the subject areas concerned and (3) to 
provide for reasonable opportunities for professional 
advancement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition D 
on a competitive basis. The scheme should, therefore, be 
appropriately named as "Merit Promotion Scheme for University 
Teachers". This would be in the nature of a "flexible 
complementing scheme" as prevailing in other services, wherein 
no additional posts are created, and the existing person on the 
basis of critical assessment are promoted to the next higher level E 
and the position is held by such incumbents as personal to 
them, and no resultant vacancy is required to be filled. Such a 
Scheme would considerably encourage the teachers to 
engage in advanced teaching and research and make 
distinct contributions which would merit recognition and 
promotion. 
F 
The present scheme when compared to similar schemes operating 
in other services, it is in fact rather conservative, keeping in 
view the present pay scale structure and the time involved, for 
persons to advance their profession. However, even this limited G 
scheme will prevent, stagnation and promote a better climate of 
teaching and research. 
2. In the present context of implementation of the revised scales 
of pay in the universities and colleges since January 1973 and 
the provision for similar merit promotion schemes prevailing H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
in CSIR, old scheme, !CAR, DSRDO etc. and the opportunities 
available in other services of the Government of India for 
professional advancement, it is imperative that the universities 
be enabled to implement merit promotion scheme based upon 
the evaluation of the work of the teacher from time to time. 
The scheme may be made effective from 1st April, 1980. 
Method of implementation: 
3. (a) Teachers in the university departments engaged in advanced 
teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements 
are such as to merit recognition, may be considered for merit 
promotion, in the first instance, after completion six years of 
continuous service in their respective cadre, of which at least 
three years should be in the institution where he/she is being 
considered for such assessment and merit promotion. (b) Any 
teacher who has been considered and not selected for merit 
promotion in the initial presentation could however submit his 
work again only after a lapse of three years, (c) Teachers 
interested in such assessment and consideration of merit 
pro

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