REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR.V. DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR. versus DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 17-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR.
v.
DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4079 of 2020)
DECEMBER 17, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law:
Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS
Promotion) – Under statute framed under Karnataka State University
Act – To the post of Professor – Eligibility date – Incumbent teacher
joined the constituent college of the University on 28.10.2013 as
Associate Professor – Prior to that, he was working as Associate
Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009 in the affiliated college
of the University – CAS promotion granted to the post of Professor
from 28.10.2013 – Writ Petition claiming his promotion from
01.01.2009 on the ground that on 01.01.2009 he had completed
eligibility criteria – Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High
Court allowed his case and directed to grant him promotion from
01.01.2009 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: For the purpose of
grant of CAS promotions, the word “College” is to be interpreted,
keeping in mind the preamble of the relevant statute, governing
promotions and not the definition of “College” u/s. 2(2) of the Act
– A harmonious reading of Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute
r/w Preamble thereof makes it clear that the term “College” is
referable to only “Constituent College” and not “Affiliated College”
– Therefore, the incumbent teacher is entitled to promotion only
from the date of entry of service into the University and not covering
the period anterior thereto – Statute Governing the Direct
Recruitment, Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)
and Conduct of Interview to the Posts of Professors, Associate
Professors, Assistant Professors, Principals of Constituent Colleges,
Directors of Physical Education and Librarians under Section
40(1)(k) of KSU Act, 2000 – Preamble; Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 –
Karnataka State University Act, 2000 – s. 2(2).
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 859
859
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, applies
to all the colleges, including private college. Even private colleges
have to seek affiliation from the jurisdictional University, as such
the College is widely defined in the Act. Definition u/s. 2(2) of
the Act cannot be readily imported, as defined, for the purpose of
grant of promotions under CAS. For the purpose of grant of
promotions under CAS, the word ‘College’ is to be interpreted,
keeping in mind, the preamble of the Statute, governing
promotions. [Para 17][868-A-B]
2. A comprehensive reading of the statute makes it very
clear that for the purpose of granting CAS promotion, the
incumbent teacher must have been holding a substantive
sanctioned post. It is also clear that the incumbent teacher must
be on the “roll and active services of the University or the
College”, on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee
for selection under CAS Promotion. A harmonious reading of
Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute read with the Preamble
thereof, makes it clear that the term “College” used in the said
statute is referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated
College. [Para 15][866-F-H]
3. The High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect namely,
that the first respondent was not in actual service of the University
or of the constituent College, has ordered to extend the benefit
from 01.01.2009. There cannot be any promotion in the University
for the period, when the writ petitioner was not in effective service
of the University. The University is not expected to order
promotion for the period when he was working in affiliated college.
[Para 16][867-A-B]
4. The High Court, by misconstruing the statute contrary
to its objectives, as mentioned in the preamble liberally construed,
going beyond the scope of the statute and granted all
consequential benefits, by declaring that the effective date for
promotion was to be 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013. The High
Court has fallen in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of
the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word “colleges”, by
extending the meaning to “affiliated college”. Even the Division
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
Bench has committed the same error by recording a finding that
a magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings
University/Colleges, as used in the paragraph/clause 12.7 of the
Statute. The University has correctly interpreted the various
clauses of the Statute and by gi

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