LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior service in an affiliated college can be counted for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotion eligibility in a university.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Registrar Karnataka University & Anr. vs. Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 17 December 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 984
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a university teacher’s past service in an affiliated college be considered for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that CAS promotions are effective from the date of joining the university, not from prior service in affiliated colleges. This judgment settles a dispute between the Karnataka University and one of its professors regarding the effective date of his promotion. The judgment was authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah concurring.
Case Background
Dr. Prabhugouda, the first respondent, was an Associate Professor at J.S.S College, affiliated with Karnataka University. He applied for promotion to Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). The University promoted him to Professor, effective from 28.10.2013, the date he joined the University’s service. Dr. Prabhugouda contended that his three years of service as an Associate Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009 in the affiliated college should be counted, making him eligible for promotion from 01.01.2009. The University rejected this claim, stating that CAS promotion is effective from the date of joining the University.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 01.01.2006 – 01.01.2009 | Dr. Prabhugouda worked as Associate Professor at J.S.S College. |
| 26.10.2013 | Syndicate Resolution No.24: Dr. Prabhugouda appointed as Associate Professor in the P.G. Department of Studies in Mathematics in the University. |
| 28.10.2013 | Dr. Prabhugouda joined Karnataka University. |
| 04.07.2013 | University issued circular inviting applications for promotion under CAS. |
| 12.08.2014 | Dr. Prabhugouda appeared for interview before the Board of Appointment (BOA). |
| 16.02.2016 | Promotion order issued, promoting Dr. Prabhugouda as Professor, with effect from 28.10.2013. |
| 18.03.2016 & 25.07.2016 | Dr. Prabhugouda made representations to the University for CAS promotion from 01.01.2009. |
| 19.07.2017 | Syndicate of the University rejected Dr. Prabhugouda’s claim for CAS promotion from 01.01.2009. |
| 04.08.2017 | University issued an endorsement rejecting the claim. |
| 13.03.2019 | Single Judge of the High Court allowed Dr. Prabhugouda’s writ petition, directing promotion from 01.01.2009. |
| 02.01.2020 | Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the University’s appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s order. |
| 17.12.2020 | Supreme Court allowed the University’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
Dr. Prabhugouda challenged the University Syndicate’s decision in the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking CAS promotion from 01.01.2009. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, ruling that his service in the affiliated college should be considered for CAS promotion, and directed the University to grant promotion from 01.01.2009. The University appealed, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Single Judge’s interpretation of the term “colleges” in the statute to include affiliated colleges. The University then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the statutes framed by the Karnataka University for direct recruitment and promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). The preamble of the statute states that it is framed for personnel in the “Universities and Constituent Colleges.” Clause 12.7 of the statute states:
“The incumbent teacher must be on the role and active service of the University/Colleges on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion.”
Clause 13.7 states:
“Assistant Professors completing three years of teaching in third grade (stage 3) shall be eligible, subject to the qualifying conditions and the API based PBAS requirements prescribed by this Statute, to move to the next higher grade (stage 4) and to be designated as Associate Professor.”
Clause 13.8 states:
“Associate Professor completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher grade (stage 5), subject to (a)satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in Table I-III of Annexure-I stipulated in this Statute, and (b)an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that, no teacher, other than those with a Ph.D., shall be promoted or appointed as Professor.”
Clause 17 of the statute provides for counting of past service for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS.
The University argued that the term “Colleges” in clause 12.7 refers only to constituent colleges, not affiliated colleges. The respondent relied on Section 2(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, which defines “College” to include both constituent and affiliated colleges.
Arguments
Appellant (University) Arguments:
- ✓ The University argued that the respondent was not in its service before 28.10.2013, and therefore, his promotion cannot be effective from any date prior to that.
- ✓ The preamble of the statute clearly states that it applies to teachers of the University or its constituent colleges.
- ✓ The term “Colleges” in clause 12.7 of the statute refers only to constituent colleges, not affiliated colleges.
- ✓ The benefit of Clause 17 of the Statute was duly given to respondent No.1, and his previous service was considered for promotion, but as he was not in the effective service of the University, the University has rightly given the effective date from 28.10.2013.
Respondent (Dr. Prabhugouda) Arguments:
- ✓ The statute applies to various posts, including “principals of Constituent Colleges,” which should be read disjunctively from other posts.
- ✓ The term “College,” as defined under Section 2(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, includes both constituent and affiliated colleges.
- ✓ The High Court correctly interpreted the statute, and the effective date of promotion should be 01.01.2009.
The University argued that the High Court misinterpreted the statute by giving a liberal meaning to the word “colleges” and extending it to affiliated colleges. The University contended that the statute’s preamble and other clauses clearly indicate that the benefit of CAS promotion is applicable only to teachers who are on the rolls of the University or its constituent colleges.
The respondent argued that the term “colleges” should be interpreted broadly to include affiliated colleges, as defined in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. He contended that his prior service in the affiliated college should be counted for CAS promotion.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (University) | Sub-Submissions (Dr. Prabhugouda) |
|---|---|---|
| Effective Date of Promotion |
|
|
| Interpretation of “Colleges” |
|
|
| Applicability of Statute |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the service rendered by the first respondent-writ petitioner in an affiliated college can be counted for the purpose of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in the University.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether service in an affiliated college can be counted for CAS promotion in the University. | No. | The Court held that the term “Colleges” in the University’s statute refers only to constituent colleges, not affiliated colleges. The CAS promotion is a personal promotion to the incumbent teacher, and the teacher must be on the rolls and active service of the University or constituent college on the date of consideration for promotion. The effective date of promotion is from the date of joining the University. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following:
- ✓ The preamble of the 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.
- ✓ Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute, which deal with the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee for CAS Promotion.
- ✓ Clauses 13.7 and 13.8 of the Statute, which deal with the Stages of Promotion under CAS.
- ✓ Clause 17 of the Statute, which provides for Counting of Past Service for Direct Recruitment and Promotion Under CAS.
- ✓ Section 2(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, which defines “College.”
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Preamble of the Statute governing the direct recruitment, promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) | Karnataka University | The Court relied on the preamble to interpret the scope of the statute, noting that it was framed for personnel in the “Universities and Constituent Colleges.” |
| Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute | Karnataka University | The Court interpreted these clauses to mean that the incumbent teacher must be on the rolls and active service of the University or a constituent college for CAS promotion. |
| Clauses 13.7 and 13.8 of the Statute | Karnataka University | The Court referred to these clauses to understand the stages of promotion under CAS and the eligibility criteria. |
| Clause 17 of the Statute | Karnataka University | The Court referred to this clause which provides for Counting of Past Service for Direct Recruitment and Promotion Under CAS. |
| Section 2(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 | Karnataka State Legislature | The Court acknowledged the definition of “College” in the Act but held that it cannot be imported for the purpose of CAS promotions, as the statute governing promotions has a specific meaning for the term “College.” |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the University and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the term “Colleges” in the University’s statute refers only to constituent colleges, not affiliated colleges. The Court also held that the effective date of promotion is from the date of joining the University, not from prior service in an affiliated college.
| Submission | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| University’s submission that promotion should be effective from the date of joining the University. | Accepted. The Court held that the effective date of promotion is from the date of entry into the University’s service, i.e., 28.10.2013. |
| University’s submission that “Colleges” in the statute refers only to constituent colleges. | Accepted. The Court held that the term “Colleges” in the statute is referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated College. |
| Dr. Prabhugouda’s submission that prior service in an affiliated college should be counted for CAS promotion. | Rejected. The Court held that the incumbent teacher must be on the rolls and active service of the University or a constituent college for CAS promotion. |
| Dr. Prabhugouda’s submission that the term “Colleges” should be interpreted as per Section 2(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. | Rejected. The Court held that the definition in the Act cannot be imported for the purpose of CAS promotions under the statute. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ The preamble of the statute was used to understand the objective of the statute, which is to govern promotions in the University and its constituent colleges.
- ✓ Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute were interpreted to mean that the incumbent teacher must be on the rolls and active service of the University or a constituent college for CAS promotion.
- ✓ Clauses 13.7 and 13.8 of the Statute were referred to understand the stages of promotion under CAS and the eligibility criteria.
- ✓ Clause 17 of the Statute was referred to understand that past service is to be counted for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion.
- ✓ Section 2(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, was held to be not applicable for the purpose of CAS promotions under the statute.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the specific language of the University’s statutes and the need for a clear interpretation that aligns with the intent of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). The Court emphasized that CAS promotions are personal to the incumbent teacher and that the teacher must be in the active service of the University or its constituent colleges to be eligible for such promotion. The Court also highlighted that the statute’s preamble and other clauses clearly indicate that the benefit of CAS promotion is applicable only to teachers who are on the rolls of the University or its constituent colleges.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Statute’s Language | 40% |
| Need for Active Service in University | 35% |
| CAS Promotion is Personal to Incumbent | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
The Court rejected the argument that the term “colleges” should be interpreted broadly to include affiliated colleges, stating that the statute has a specific meaning for the term “College” in the context of CAS promotions. The Court also rejected the argument that the term “principals of Constituent Colleges” should be read disjunctively, stating that it would run contrary to the objectives and preamble of the statute.
The Court emphasized the importance of the teacher being in the active service of the University or its constituent colleges for CAS promotion, stating:
“There cannot be any promotion in the University for the period where the writ petitioner was not in effective service of the University.”
The Court further clarified:
“The University is not expected to order promotion for the period when he was working in affiliated college.”
The Court concluded that the University had correctly interpreted the statute and given the benefit of past service by making the promotion effective from the date of entry into the service of the University.
“Though the earlier service is to be counted for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion, but effective date for all purposes is only from the date of entry of first respondent into the University service, i.e, 28.10.2013.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotions for university teachers are effective from the date of joining the university’s service.
- ✓ Prior service in affiliated colleges cannot be counted for determining the effective date of CAS promotion in a university.
- ✓ The term “colleges” in the context of CAS promotions in a university refers only to constituent colleges, not affiliated colleges.
- ✓ University statutes governing CAS promotions must be interpreted strictly, considering the preamble and other relevant clauses.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. Prabhugouda.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotions, the effective date is the date of joining the University service and not the prior service in affiliated colleges. The term “colleges” in the University’s statutes refers only to constituent colleges, not affiliated colleges. This clarifies the interpretation of the term “colleges” in the context of CAS promotions and establishes that the benefit of CAS promotion is applicable only to teachers who are on the rolls of the University or its constituent colleges.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Registrar Karnataka University vs. Dr. Prabhugouda clarifies that Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotions for university teachers are effective from the date of joining the university’s service, not from prior service in affiliated colleges. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specific language and intent of university statutes governing CAS promotions.