LexRAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus DR. ZABAR SINGH SOLANKI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 175 : 2024 INSC 581 Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar v. Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22278 of 2011) 06 August 2024 [Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration In the Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011, the respondents herein are the Research Assistants, who were designated as Lecturers and later re-designated as Assistant Professors were deprived of the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Whether by re-designating Research Assistants as Lecturers and thereafter as Assistant Professors, they could be granted the benefit of CAS. In the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 30963/2018, the respondents herein before their regular appointment as Assistant Professors in the University, served on an ad-hoc basis in other educational institutions. Whether services rendered in such ad-hoc capacity while determining their eligibility for the grant of senior pay-scale under the CAS. Headnotes† Udaipur University Act, 1962 – Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 – In the Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011, the appellant has submitted that merely by re-designating Research Assistants as Lecturers and thereafter as Assistant Professors, they could not have been granted the benefit of CAS – This benefit was available only to Lecturers, who were directly appointed on the posts of Assistant Professors under 1974 Act and had completed eight years of service: Held: On an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances, it is clear that upon re-designation of the Research Assistants as Lecturers/Assistant Professors, they got what was due to them in the form of the same pay-scale as was applicable to the * Author 176 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports directly-recruited Lecturers, but once it came to the CAS, the CAS specifically envisaged that benefit thereunder was restricted to persons completing 8 years of service after regular appointment – Only by reason that the respondents were receiving the same pay-scale as the direct recruits, would not entitle them to get benefit of CAS as it was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, including completion of certain years of service viz. 8 years – There would be a segregation in the two cadres – Ipso facto, benefits accorded to one would not accrue to the other unless so specified in the relevant Scheme, as may be framed by the employer i.e., State Government/University – It is held that the writ petitioners/private respondents are not entitled to benefits under the CAS, as notified by the Government of India vide Letter dated 22.07.1988. [Paras 24, 25] Udaipur University Act, 1962 – Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 – In the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No.30963/2018, in this case, respondents, before their regular appointment as Assistant Professors in the University, served on an ad-hoc basis in other educational institutions and also in the University – These respondents preferred a writ petition before the High Court with a prayer to reckon their services rendered in such ad-hoc capacity while determining their eligibility for the grant of senior pay-scale under the CAS – The relief claimed was granted by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Justified or not: Held: Notably, the State Government vide its Letter dated 20.09.1994, had specifically clarified that the period of ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents/Assistant Professors shall not be counted for giving benefit of senior pay-scale under the CAS – As elaborated, in the Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No.22278/2011 and 22813/2011 that the CAS is essentially a policy, and as such, the respondents cannot claim, nor would they have any vested right for claiming that the clauses therein be interpreted in a particular manner – Such an interpretative exercise would have to be left, in the domain of the appellant, subject to the State Government’s directives unless patently perverse or arbitrary – The High Court, hence, was not justified in counting of the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents for reckoning the period of computation as required for ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.