2010 (3) TMI 1058 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of promotions based on the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University - Promotions to different grades of non-teaching staff of the University - Criteria of Seniority-cum- Efficiency - Word approval - expression approval of the State Government and not prior approval of the State Government . HELD THAT - Since the words used are with the approval of the State Government the Executive Council of the University could determine the terms and conditions of service of the non-teaching staff and obtain the approval of the State Government subsequently and in case the State Government did not grant approval subsequently any action taken on the basis of the decision of the Executive Council of the University would be invalid and not otherwise. We therefore hold that promotions to different grades of non-teaching staff made by the University on the basis of the principles laid down in the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995 are valid as the Resolution has been approved by the State Government on 10.10.2002. This appeal is without any merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta regarding promotions of non-teaching staff at the University of Burdwan. The University had adopted a resolution on 26.06.1995 to change the promotion criteria to 'Seniority-cum-Efficiency'. The Single Judge of the High Court set aside this resolution, but the Division Bench directed the University to seek approval from the State Government for the resolution. The State Government approved the resolution on 10.10.2002.The main issue before the Court was whether the resolution adopted by the University in 1995 could be applied to promotions made prior to the State Government's approval in 2002. The appellants argued that without prior approval from the State Government, the resolution could not be applied retroactively. They relied on various precedents to support their argument.On the other hand, the respondents contended that the approval of the State Government post facto validated the promotions made based on the resolution. They cited previous court decisions to distinguish between permission, prior approval, and approval.The Court examined the language of Section 21(xiii) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981, which empowered the Executive Council to determine terms of service with the approval of the State Government. The Court noted that the Act did not require prior approval, only approval. Therefore, actions taken based on the resolution were valid once approved by the State Government.The Court held that promotions made by the University based on the 1995 resolution were valid since the State Government had approved the resolution in 2002. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified that the approval of the State Government post facto validated the promotions made based on the resolution adopted by the University in 1995. The Court's interpretation of the relevant legal framework and precedents supported the decision to uphold the promotions.