Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner, who is working as a Professor and Dean, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences in Central University of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘University’), has filed the present petition praying for following main reliefs:

“i. That respondents may kindly be directed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-1 dated 15th September, 2020, whereby inter se seniority list of Professors has been issued and the petitioner is kept at Sr. No.2 instead of Sr. No.1.

ii. That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the promoted Professors under CAS scheme and all promoted Professors should be treated as Additional Professors, but not as full-fledged Professor.

iii. Pay-scales of promoted Professors under CAS should be reduced.

iv. The respondent University may kindly be fined with heavy cost and the same may kindly be given to the present petitioner, as he has been put to unnecessarily litigation in the present case.”

2. The University, which has been established under the Central Universities Act, 2009, started functioning in January, 2010. University Grants Commission granted approval for running various academic programmes and also approved creation of various teaching positions vide letters dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure R-1) and 18.8.2010 (annexure R-2). Consequently, the University started process to fill up the posts through direct recruitment, on regular basis. In the interview held for the post of Professor, Department of Environment on 16.2.2012, one Dr. Tamizul Islam Khan Jamali was selected and petitioner was placed in waiting list (Annexure R-4). On 12.2.2012, Dr. Tamizul Islam Khan Jamali was repatriated to his parent Institution i.e. University of Rajasthan and petitioner was given appointment to the post of Professor, Department of Environment Science on 15.2.2013. He joined on 26.2.2013.

3. Simultaneously, in the interview for the post of Professor, Department of English held on 18.2.2012, respondent No.3 also appeared, but none was found suitable for appointment, however, he had also applied for the post of Associate Professor, Department of English, for which also interview was held on 18.2.2012, in which he was selected and he joined the University on 27.3.2012.

4. As per University, appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities is governed by the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education (hereinafter, ’Regulations’). Said Regulations, inter alia also provide for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (in short, ‘CAS’). Ordinance 47 was framed to deal with promotion of University teachers under CAS strictly in accordance with Clause 6.4.0 of the Regulations. Clause 10.0 of Regulations and Clause 9 of Ordinance No. 47 provide for counting of past service for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. Clause 10 of the Regulations reads as under:

“10.0 Counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS.

10.1 Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT etc. should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III- Table No. II provided that:

(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.

(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.

(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and professor, as the case may be.

(e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/ Central Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.

(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year direction. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that:

(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;

(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and

(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.

(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/ Government) was considered for counting past services under this clause.”

5. Similarly, Clause 9 of Ordinance No. 47, provides for similar conditions. However, Clause 10.1 provides that a teacher, who wishes to be considered for promotion under CAS may submit in writing to the University, within three months in advance of the due date, that he/she fulfils all the requirements under the CAS and submit to the University the Assessment Criteria and Methodology Proforma as evolved by the University.

6. Respondent No.3, who was appointed as Associate Professor on 27.3.2012, was considered by the University for promotion under CAS in the interview held on 1.11.2017 and, as per University, after considering his service rendered as Associate Professor in Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, he was found eligible for promotion to the post of Professor in Department of English. Executive Council of the University approved promotion of respondent No.3 in its 30th meeting held on 10.11.2017. Vide Order dated 5.12.2017 (Annexure R-15), he was promoted as Professor, Department of English with effect from 27.3.2012. After promotion of respondent No.3 as Professor, Department of English, University vide office order dated 15.9.2020 (Annexure P/I), circulated University-Level inter-se seniority list of Professors, in which respondent No. 3 was shown at Sr. No. 1 with date of entry in the grade of Professor as 27.3.2012 and petitioner was shown at Sr. No.2 with date of entry in the grade of Professor as 26.2.2013.

7. Petitioner, who was borne in the cadre of Professor, Department of Environment Science on 26.2.2013, feeling aggrieved by said seniority has approached this Court praying therein for the reliefs, reproduced supra.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material adduced on record by parties.

9. If the contents of petition are seen, petitioner has raised grievance that respondent No.3 could not have been promoted as Professor from the date, when he was appointed as Associate Professor. It is averred by the petitioner that promotion under CAS is not granted against any sanctioned post and as such, a direct recruit should be placed higher than a CAS promotee. Worthwhile to note that petitioner himself was an employee of Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun and had joined the University, after being relieved by his parent institute and he was confirmed in the University only on 26.11.2018, after he tendered resignation to his parent institute.

10. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-University published the inter-se seniority of the Professors vide office order dated 15.9.2020 (Annexure R-20), wherein private respondent has been shown at Sr. No.1 and petitioner at Sr. No.2, i.e. senior to the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court (1995) 3 SCC 653 and (2011) 15 SCC 157.

11. The contention of the petitioner is that when he joined the University, private respondent was not even borne in the cadre of Professor and as such, private respondent cannot be assigned seniority over and above him

12. The parties to lis have placed reliance upon the UGC regulations, Ordinance and the Statutes promulgated under the Act. After carefully perusing the UGC regulations and the Ordinance of the University, it is borne out that the seniority of a CAS promotee shall be determined from the date of eligibility as determined by the Selection Committee. The Central University Act, 2009 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) empowers the Central Universities to frame Statutes and Ordinances. Ss. 27 and 28 of the Act are reproduced below:

Statutes, how to be made

27. (1) The first Statutes are those set out in the Second Schedule to this Act.

(2) The Executive Council may, from time to time, make new or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1):

Provided that the Executive Council shall not make, amend or repeal any Statutes affecting the status, powers or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing on the proposed changes, and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Executive Council.

(3) Every new Statute or addition to the Statutes or any amendment or repeal of a Statute shall require the assent of the Visitor who may assent thereto or withhold assent or remit to the Executive Council for re- consideration.

(4) A new Statute or a Statute amending or repealing an existing Statute shall nave no validity unless it has been assented to by the Visitor.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing subsections, the Visitor may make new or additional Statutes or amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section(1) during the period of three years immediately after the commencement if this Act: Provided that the Visitor may, on the expiry of the said period of three years, make , within one year from the date of such expiry, such detailed Statutes as he may consider necessary and such detailed Statutes shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Visitor may direct the University to make provisions in the Statutes in respect of any matter specified by him and if the Executive Council is unable to implement such direction within sixty days of its receipt, the Visitor may, after considering the reasons, if any, communicated by the Executive Council for its inability to comply with such direction, make or amend the Statutes suitably.

Powers to make Ordinance

28. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) the admission of students to the University and their enrolment as such;

(b) the courses of study to be laid down for all degrees, diplomas and certificates of the University;

(c) the medium of instruction and examination;

(d) the award of degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions, the qualifications for the same and the means to be taken relating to the granting and obtaining of the same;

(e) the fees to be charged for courses of study in the University and for admission to examinations, degrees and diplomas of the University;

(f) the conditions for award of fellowships, scholarships, studentships, medals and prizes;

(g) the conduct of examinations, including the term of office and manner of appointment and the duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators;

(h) the conditions of residence of the students of the University;

(i) the special arrangements, if any, which may be made for the residence and teaching of women students and the prescribing of special courses of studies for them;

(j) the establishment of Centres of Studies, Boards of Studies, Specialised Laboratories and other Committees;

(k) the manner of co-operation and collaboration with other Universities, Institution and other agencies including learned bodies or associations;

(l) the creation, composition and functions of any other body which is considered necessary for improving the academic life of the University;

(m) the institution of fellowships, scholarships, studentships, medals and prizes;

(n) the setting up a machinery for redressal of grievances of employees and students; and (o) all other matters which by this Act, or, the Statutes, are to be, or may be provided for by the Ordinances.

(2) The first Ordinances shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor with the previous approval of the Executive Council and the Ordinances so made may also be amended, repealed or added to at any time by the Executive Council in the manner prescribed by the Statutes:

Provided that in the case of Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, till such time as the first Ordinances are not so made, in respect of the matters that are to be provided for by the Ordinances under this Act and the Statutes, the relevant provisions of the Statutes and the Ordinances made immediately before the commencement of this Act under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, and the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973, respectively, shall be applicable in so for as they are not inconsistent with the provision of this Act and the Statutes."

13. As per Section 27, first Statute has been set out in the Second Schedule of the Act. Clause 24 of Statutes deals with seniority list, the relevant clause is reproduced herein below:

Seniority List

"24. (1) Whenever, in accordance with the Statutes, any person is to hold an office or be a member of an authority of the University by rotation according to seniority, such seniority shall be determined according to the length of continuous service of such person in his grade and in accordance with such other principles as the Executive Council may, from time to time, prescribe.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to prepare and maintain in respect of each class of persons to whom the provisions of these Statutes apply, a complete and up-todate seniority list in accordance with the provisions of clause(1).

(3) If two or more persons have equal length of continuous service in a particular grade or the relative seniority of any person or persons in otherwise in doubt, the Registrar may, on his own motion and shall, at the request of any such person, submit the matter to the Executive Council whose decision thereon shall be final."

14. The University Grants Commission (hereinafter, ‘UGC’) vide Notification dated 18.7.2017 has framed Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018(hereinafter, ‘UGC Regulations’). Clause 16.3 of the UGC Regulations pertains to inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and teachers promoted under CAS. Aforesaid clause reads as under:

“16.3 Inter-se seniority between the direct recruited and teachers promoted under CAS:

The inter-se seniority of a direct recruit shall be determined with reference to the date of joining and for the teachers promoted under the CAS with reference to the date of eligibility as indicated in the recommendation of the selection committee o the respective candidates. The rules and regulations of the respective Central /State Government shall apply, for all other matters of seniority.”

15. UGC Regulations framed by UGC under the University Grants Commission Act are applicable to the respondent-University. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v. The State of Gujarat & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019, has held as under:

“16. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament.

Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict between State legislation and Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.”

16. As per aforesaid judgment, UGC Regulations have force of law and are applicable to all the Universities.

17. As per S.28 of the Act, the Central University has promulgated Ordinance No. 14, which pertains to terms and conditions of service and Code of Conduct for teachers and other academic staff. Clause 25(d) thereof reads as under:

““d) Seniority of the teachers appointed/promoted under the Career Advancement Scheme shall be determined in accordance with the UGC guidelines/ regulations/ norms in this regard. If a teacher is promoted to the next higher grade/post under the Career Advancement Scheme, his/her seniority in the higher grade/post shall be reckoned from the date of eligibility for promotion to the next grade/post. However, if a candidate is denied promotion, his/her seniority shall be reckoned from the date of the next eligibility.”

18. UGC Regulations framed by UGC and Ordinances promulgated by the respondent-University, under the Act, provide that the relevant date for promotion under CAS is the date of eligibility as indicated in the recommendations of the Selection Committee of the respective candidates. In the present case, the eligibility of the private respondent has been determined by the Selection Committee of respondent-University as “27.3.2012” as shown in Order dated 5.12.2017. There is also no ambiguity /contradiction in the Statutes, UGC Regulations and Ordinance. Therefore, this court is of the view that the University has rightly issued the seniority list circulated vide office order dated 15.9.2020, which is in consonance with the UGC Regulations and the Statutes, and Ordinance of the respondent-University.

19. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 3 SCC 653 and (2011) 15 SCC 157. A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with Merit Promotion Scheme promulgated by the UGC and has not dealt with the UGC Regulations, the Statute and Ordinances promulgate by respondent-University under the Act, as such, said judgments are not applicable to the present case .

20. However, so far ground raised by the petitioner that respondent no.3 remained unsuccessful in the interview for the post of Professor in his Department, this court finds no relevance of same, so far assigning of seniority to respondent No.3 is concerned. Another plea raised by the petitioner that CAS promotees form an ex-cadre, which is outside the sanctioned strength is concerned, also falls to the ground, since Section 25(d) of the Act not only speaks of determining seniority of a CAS promotee from the date of eligibility, but also provides that in case such CAS promotee is denied promotion to even next higher post, his seniority shall be reckoned from next eligibility and thus, such CAS promotee will keep on gaining promotions, irrespective of the fact whether he is promoted on merit or promoted under CAS. Though it has not been clarified by either of parties, that how the posts are to be calculated, while dealing with CAS promotees and direct appointees, but aforesaid provision in the Act, makes this issue irrelevant.

21. Petitioner has also pleaded that he has been appointed as Professor after undergoing extensive selection process, whereas, respondent No.3 despite having been found not fit for appointment as Professor in his Department, has been promoted under CAS and thus, unequals have been treated as equals. Unfortunately though it is true, but since CAS framed by the UGC operates in this manner and same has not been challenged by the petitioner, this court finds no occasion to grant reliefs prayed by the petitioner viz. reduction of pay scales of all CAS promotees and treating them as ‘Additional Professors’. Otherwise also granting such prayer would affect a class of persons, who are not before this Court.

22. At this stage, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 invited attention of this court to judgment dated 10.11.2022, passed in Civil Appeal No. 8031 of 2022 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled The Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors v. Rincymol Mathew, wherein it came to be ruled that previous appointment/employment as adhoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that that period of service was of more than one year duration and the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee and the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad-hoc or temporary service, without any break. He submitted that respondent No.3 has worked in Government college with effect from November, 2008 and as such, his service has been rightly counted for grant of CAS.

23. Clauses 10.0 and 10.1 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010, clearly provide for counting of past service for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. It has been categorically provided in the aforesaid provisions that previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a university, college, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organizations i.e. CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT etc. should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS provided the incumbent possesses the qualifications as prescribed under UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor or as the case may be. Besides above, a candidate should have been initially appointed in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government concerned Institutions for such appointments. To avail the benefit of past service for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS as detailed in Clauses 10.0 and 10.1, nowhere otherwise provides that initial selection, if any, should be in terms of selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University Grants Commission, rather post should be filled up in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government concerned Institutions for such appointments.

24. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the past service of respondent No.3 was not as per UGC Regulations, therefore, same has been rightly taken into consideration by the respondent- University.

25. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed alongwith all pending applications. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.

26. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.