PROF. S.A. SIDDIQUI versus PROF. M. WAJID KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 11-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PROF. S.A. SIDDIQUI 
v. 
PROF. M. WAJID KHAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 11, 1999 
B 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Universities : 
Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 : Sections 2(k), 5(7), 24, 25 and 
c 27. 
Seniority--Professor appointed under Merit Promotion Scheme (MPS) 
and Professor appointed under general scheme-lnter-se seniority be-
tween-Held : Persons appointed under both the schemes are treated as 
belonging to the same cadre-Length of continuous service in a grade is the 
D triterion for seniority-Hence, a person who is promoted as Professor earlier 
under MPS is senior to a person who is appointed later under general 
scheme-Statutes of Aligarh Muslim University, Statutes 17(2), 27(7), 
29(2)(a) and 30(1)-Service Law. 
The University Grants Commission formulated a scheme .of Merit 
E Promotion. The Academic Council of the University recommended that the 
Merit Promotion Scheme be accepted with the modifications suggested by 
the Vice- Chancellor. The Executive Council accepted the recommenda-
tions of the Academic Council and under Statute 30 of the Statutes of the 
Afigarh Muslim University framed regulations for determining the inter-se 
F 
seniority amongst persons holding regular posts and those holding the 
same posts under the Merit Promotion Scheme. 
The appellant, who was appointed as Professor under the Merit 
Promotion Scheme. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Professor under 
the General Scheme much later than the appellant. In the seniority list of 
G Professors the appellant was shown as senior to respondent No. 1. Respon· 
dent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that since 
the appellant was promoted as Professor under the Merit Promotion 
Scheme he could not be considered for seniority or other promotions and, 
therefore, the appellant could not be shown as senior to respondent No. 1, 
H the High Court allowed the petition. Hence this appeal. 
26 
,,...\ 
S.A. SIDDIQUI v. M. WAJID KHAN 
27 
_..._ 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The Executive Council has treated all posts of Readers 
and all posts of Professors - whichever be the method of appointment, as 
belonging to the same cadre and has prescribed rules for inter se seniority 
between persons appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme and per-
B 
' 
sons appointed to general posts treating them as belonging to the same 
cadre. In fact, the question of inter se seniority would arise only if all these 
persons belonged to the same cadre. [32-E-G] 
1.2. The Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 and the Statues framed 
thereunder do contain provision for the posts of Readers/Professors under c 
the Merit Promotion Scheme and hence persons holding such posts on 
Merit Promotion Scheme cannot be considered as outside the cadre. 
Section 2(k) of the Act, which defines "Teachers", does not make any 
difference on the basis of method of appointment. Under Section 5 (7) of 
the said Act the University has the power to institute Professorships, D 
,..,.. 
. Readerships, Lecturerships and other teaching or academic posts required 
by the University and to appoint persons to such Professorships, Reader-
ships, Lecturerships and other posts and determine their conditions of 
service in accordance with the Statutes. The Statutes framed under Section 
27 inter alia, provide for the manner of appointment of teachers and other 
academic staff and their emoluments and the principles governing E 
seniority of service of employees. [33-A-C] 
2.1. Statute 30(1) provides that seniority "shall be determined ac-
cording to the length of continuou~ service of such person in his grade, 
)< 
and, in accordance with such other principles as the Executive Council 
F 
may from time to time prescribe." Under the Act, there is no specific 
provision laying down that appointments to the posts of Professors can 
only be made in a specific manner or by following a specific procedure. 
Statute 27 (7) gives an express power to the Executive Council to appoint 
a person to the post of Professor in the University on such terms and 
G 
conditions as it deems fit if the person possesses high academic distinction 
~ ). 
and professional attainment. The Executive Council also has the power to 
appoint Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching 
and academic staff on the recommendation of the Selection Committee 
constituted for the purpose. It has to act on the recommendation of the 
, 
Academic Counci

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