Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Vs. U.R. Nahar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5987 of 1997
Petitioner: Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr.
Respondent: U.R. Nahar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5987 of 1997
Judges: G.P. PATTANAIK & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 17, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974
Sections 11(12) (since deleted), 5, 6 – Inter se seniority – Stagnation of teachers – Ex-cadre posts of readers and professors created – Regular professor and readers appointed under sections 5 & 6 – Promotees to ex-cadre posts – If will be senior. Held that they cannot get seniority over regularly appointed professors and readers. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by the Jai Naraian Vyas University, Jodhpur is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
2. By the impugned judgment the High Court has held the provisions of sections 11(12) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (selection for appointment) Act, 1974 to be ultra vires. The original Act is of the year 1974 which provided selection for appointment of teachers and officers of the university of Rajasthan. In the year 1984 by virtue of an ordinance which was replaced by an Act, section 11 was added to the same. The aforesaid provision was intended to mitigate the grievances of the teachers who were stagnating either as lecturers or readers and not getting any promotion as the number of posts of reader and professor was limited. Under section 11 the state government was entitled to create ex-cadre posts of professors or readers in each faculty of the university to the extent of one third of the eligible persons as on 1st of January each year and such ex-cadre posts could be filled up by personal promotion on the basis of merit alone. The prescribed procedure for selection to man this ex-cadre post was different from the normal process of selection to the post of reader and asstt. professor. Sub-section (12) of section 11 deals with the inter se seniority of such readers and professors who get promotion to the created ex-cadre posts and the regular readers and professors regularly appointed in university by process of selection under sections 5 and 6.
3. The High Court, having examined the relevant provisions of the statute, has held that in view of the definition of ‘ex-cadre post’ as well as the nature and manner of filling of the same, it is difficult to sustain that for the purpose of seniority, they should be deemed to be a member of the cadre and the High Court struck down the relevant provision. We see no infirmity in the said conclusion of the High Court. It is true that the decision on which the High Court placed reliance may not be directly applicable. But, having examined the relevant provisions ourselves, we are in agreement with the ultimate conclusion of the High Court and hold that the persons promoted to ex-cadre post as readers and professors cannot get seniority vis-a-vis those who have been appointed/promoted to the post of reader and professor on regular basis in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 5 and 6 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we see no justification for our interference with the impugned judgment.
4. Be it stated that since December 27, 1996 the very Act itself has been amended and under the amended provisions section 11(12) no longer subsists. The very amendment made by the Legislature would indicate that it was not the legislative intent to confer seniority to these persons appointed to the ex-cadre posts, in the regular cadre.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
1. This appeal by the Jai Naraian Vyas University, Jodhpur is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
2. By the impugned judgment the High Court has held the provisions of sections 11(12) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (selection for appointment) Act, 1974 to be ultra vires. The original Act is of the year 1974 which provided selection for appointment of teachers and officers of the university of Rajasthan. In the year 1984 by virtue of an ordinance which was replaced by an Act, section 11 was added to the same. The aforesaid provision was intended to mitigate the grievances of the teachers who were stagnating either as lecturers or readers and not getting any promotion as the number of posts of reader and professor was limited. Under section 11 the state government was entitled to create ex-cadre posts of professors or readers in each faculty of the university to the extent of one third of the eligible persons as on 1st of January each year and such ex-cadre posts could be filled up by personal promotion on the basis of merit alone. The prescribed procedure for selection to man this ex-cadre post was different from the normal process of selection to the post of reader and asstt. professor. Sub-section (12) of section 11 deals with the inter se seniority of such readers and professors who get promotion to the created ex-cadre posts and the regular readers and professors regularly appointed in university by process of selection under sections 5 and 6.
3. The High Court, having examined the relevant provisions of the statute, has held that in view of the definition of ‘ex-cadre post’ as well as the nature and manner of filling of the same, it is difficult to sustain that for the purpose of seniority, they should be deemed to be a member of the cadre and the High Court struck down the relevant provision. We see no infirmity in the said conclusion of the High Court. It is true that the decision on which the High Court placed reliance may not be directly applicable. But, having examined the relevant provisions ourselves, we are in agreement with the ultimate conclusion of the High Court and hold that the persons promoted to ex-cadre post as readers and professors cannot get seniority vis-a-vis those who have been appointed/promoted to the post of reader and professor on regular basis in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 5 and 6 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we see no justification for our interference with the impugned judgment.
4. Be it stated that since December 27, 1996 the very Act itself has been amended and under the amended provisions section 11(12) no longer subsists. The very amendment made by the Legislature would indicate that it was not the legislative intent to confer seniority to these persons appointed to the ex-cadre posts, in the regular cadre.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
