2005 (10) TMI 538 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the qualification laid down under para 13 and 14 of UGC Career Advancement Scheme is mandatory or not for placing the appellant in senior scale and selection grade and if there is no finding about the qualification, the appellant did not qualify for the said scheme?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Regularisation of service
2. Award of senior scale and selection grades
3. Validity of the High Court's decision on the review petition
4. Interpretation of the UGC Career Advancement Scheme and its mandatory conditions

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regularisation of Service:
The appellant, a Lecturer since 23.09.1976, sought regularisation of his service. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed that he be given an opportunity to acquire an M.Phil degree within three years, with study leave provided. Upon acquiring the degree, his services were to be regularised immediately. The Tribunal's operative part stated, "If the applicant fails to acquire the M.Phil degree even after being given this opportunity, the Government will be at liberty to terminate his services. If the applicant is able to acquire the M.Phil degree he should be regularised immediately after he gets the M.Phil degree."

2. Award of Senior Scale and Selection Grades:
The appellant filed multiple applications (O.A. No. 79 and 80/A&N/1998, O.A.No. 17/A&N/1999, O.A.No. 107/A&N/1999, and O.A. No. 90 of 2002) seeking regularisation and award of senior scale and selection grades. The Tribunal directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to decide the matter of regularisation by 31.3.2001. The appellant's service was regularised from 12.3.1993, but he sought regularisation from 23.9.1976. The Tribunal awarded him regularisation from the initial date of his appointment and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the respondents for unnecessary harassment. The High Court directed reconsideration of his case and upheld the cost.

3. Validity of the High Court's Decision on the Review Petition:
The appellant challenged the High Court's decision on the review petition, arguing that the judgment did not address whether the qualifications under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme were mandatory. The appellant contended that the High Court overlooked documents showing that senior scale and selection grade were awarded to others based on length of service and teaching experience. The High Court's failure to consider these documents was seen as an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review jurisdiction.

4. Interpretation of the UGC Career Advancement Scheme and its Mandatory Conditions:
The appellant argued that the UGC guidelines allowed for relaxation of certain conditions, such as participation in refresher courses, which had been extended up to 31.12.2004. The appellant claimed to meet other conditions for senior scale and selection grade, including possessing an M.Phil degree, presenting research papers, and teaching at the Post-Graduate level. The respondents, however, maintained that the appellant did not meet the mandatory conditions under the Career Advancement Scheme.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not address several important issues and overlooked relevant documents. The Court held that review jurisdiction was warranted due to an error apparent on the face of the record and non-consideration of relevant documents. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order refusing review and restored the original writ petition for fresh consideration on merits. The appeals were allowed, and both parties were permitted to submit additional documents in the High Court. The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. The appeals were allowed with no costs.