Supreme Court Allows Counting of Past Service for Career Advancement Scheme: Mahatma Gandhi University vs. Rincymol Mathew (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 10 November 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 974

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a university deny Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) benefits to a professor by not counting their past service in a temporary position, even if the appointment was through a proper selection process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment. This case revolves around whether prior service in a temporary position can be considered for calculating benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming the High Court’s decision to count past service. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The respondent, Rincymol Mathew, was initially appointed as a Lecturer at the School of Medical Education, a self-financing institution under Mahatma Gandhi University, on October 3, 1998. This appointment followed a selection process approved by the University’s Vice-Chancellor and the Director of the School of Medical Education. She was initially on probation, which was later confirmed on October 3, 1999. She continued as a Lecturer until February 5, 2001.

Subsequently, she was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Nursing (February 6, 2001 – October 11, 2004), then as an Associate Professor in Nursing (October 4, 2004 – April 11, 2005), and finally as a Professor in Nursing (April 12, 2005 – January 20, 2011). On January 21, 2011, she was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioural Sciences, a department of Mahatma Gandhi University.

The dispute arose when the University refused to count her service at the School of Medical Education (October 3, 1998 – February 21, 2011) for the purpose of calculating benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as per the UGC Regulations. The University initially agreed to grant her CAS benefits, but later revoked this decision, stating that her initial appointment as Lecturer was not to a duly sanctioned post under the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent challenged the University’s decision to revoke the CAS benefits in a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that her appointment as Lecturer was through a proper selection process and that she was qualified. The Single Judge directed the University to count her past service at the School of Medical Education for CAS benefits.

The University appealed this decision to a Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order. The University then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations, which deals with the counting of previous service for direct recruitment and promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Regulation 10.1 states:

“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 duration. 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.”

The Court also considered the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, specifically Section 10(17), which outlines the powers of the Vice-Chancellor.

Arguments

Appellant (University)’s Arguments:

• The University argued that Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations only allows counting of previous regular service as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor for CAS benefits.
• They contended that the respondent’s initial appointment as a Lecturer was on a temporary post and not made through the due procedure as required by the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. Therefore, her past service should not be counted for CAS benefits.

Respondent (Rincymol Mathew)’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that her initial appointment as Lecturer was through a proper selection process and on probation, which was later confirmed.
• She highlighted that she was subsequently appointed as Assistant Professor, then promoted to Associate Professor, all in regular pay scales.
• She contended that her continuous service from 1998 should be considered for CAS benefits.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the respondent’s past service at the School of Medical Education from October 3, 1998, to February 21, 2011, can be counted for the purpose of granting benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as per the UGC Regulations.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court primarily relied on Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations. The Court also considered the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, specifically Section 10(17), which outlines the powers of the Vice-Chancellor. No other cases or books were cited.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court interpreted Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations* to mean that previous temporary service can be counted for CAS benefits, provided that the service was for more than one year, the appointment was based on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee, and the incumbent was selected to a permanent post in continuation of the temporary service without any break. The Court found that the respondent’s service met these conditions.

The Court considered Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985* in the context of the Vice-Chancellor’s power to revoke the Syndicate’s decision. However, the Court did not find this provision to be a hindrance to its decision.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s initial appointment as Lecturer was through a proper selection process, her probation was confirmed, and she was subsequently appointed to higher positions in a continuous manner. The Court also noted that the respondent’s service met the conditions specified in clause 10.1(f) of the UGC Regulations, which allows for the counting of temporary service if it is of more than one year, based on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee and is followed by a permanent appointment without any break.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the University’s argument that the initial appointment was temporary. However, the Court noted that the respondent’s appointment met the conditions specified in clause 10.1(f) of the UGC Regulations, which allows for the counting of temporary service if it is of more than one year, based on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee and is followed by a permanent appointment without any break. The Court did not find any alternative interpretations that would justify denying the respondent the benefit of CAS.

The Court concluded that the respondent’s continuous service from 1998 should be counted for the purpose of granting CAS benefits. The Court stated, “In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her probation was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed / promoted as Assistant Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of Associate Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, the respondent shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for the period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant of the benefit of CAS.”

The Court also agreed with the High Court’s view, stating, “We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for.”

The Court also noted that, “Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole.”

Key Takeaways

• Past temporary service can be counted for CAS benefits if it meets the criteria specified in Regulation 10.1(f) of the UGC Regulations.
• Continuous service, even if initiated in a temporary position, can be considered for CAS benefits if the appointment was through a proper selection process and followed by a permanent appointment without a break.
• Universities must adhere to the UGC Regulations when granting CAS benefits and should not deny benefits based on technicalities if the service meets the substantive requirements.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations and ensures that teachers are not denied CAS benefits based on the nature of their initial appointment, provided they meet the substantive criteria for counting past service. This decision will likely impact future cases involving CAS benefits and temporary service.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, directing the University to grant the respondent the benefit of CAS after counting her earlier service rendered from October 3, 1998.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that past temporary service can be counted for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) benefits if it meets the conditions specified in Regulation 10.1(f) of the UGC Regulations. This clarifies that the nature of the initial appointment (temporary or permanent) is not the sole determining factor, but rather whether the service meets the substantive criteria of being for more than one year, based on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee, and followed by a permanent appointment without any break. This decision reinforces the principle that teachers should not be deprived of CAS benefits due to technicalities in their initial appointments, provided their service meets the substantive requirements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to count the respondent’s past service for CAS benefits. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s continuous service, initiated as a Lecturer and followed by appointments as Assistant and Associate Professor, met the criteria specified in Regulation 10.1(f) of the UGC Regulations. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the substance of service rather than just the technicalities of initial appointments when granting CAS benefits.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)

Child Category: UGC Regulations

Parent Category: University Grants Commission

Child Category: UGC Regulations

Parent Category: Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985

Child Category: Section 10(17), Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985

FAQ

Q: Can past temporary service be counted for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) benefits?

A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, past temporary service can be counted for CAS benefits if it meets certain conditions, such as being for more than one year, based on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee, and followed by a permanent appointment without any break.

Q: What is the primary requirement for counting past service under the UGC Regulations?

A: The primary requirement is that the service should meet the criteria specified in Regulation 10.1(f) of the UGC Regulations, which includes the duration of service, the selection process, and the continuity of service.

Q: What if the initial appointment was in a temporary position?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that even if the initial appointment was in a temporary position, the service can be counted if it meets the conditions specified in Regulation 10.1(f) of the UGC Regulations.

Q: What does the term “Career Advancement Scheme” (CAS) mean?

A: The Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) is a scheme under the UGC Regulations that provides for career progression and promotion opportunities for teachers in universities and colleges.

Q: What was the main issue in the case of Mahatma Gandhi University vs. Rincymol Mathew?

A: The main issue was whether the University could deny CAS benefits to a professor by not counting their past service in a temporary position, even if the appointment was through a proper selection process.