1995 (1) TMI 393 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority of the appellant and respondents as Professors in Physics.
2. Availability of alternative remedy u/s 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.
3. Validity and effect of personal promotion under Section 31-A of the Act.
4. Applicability of amended Statutes for determining seniority.

Summary:

1. Inter se Seniority:
The core issue in this appeal is the inter se seniority of the appellant and Respondents 4 and 5 as Professors in Physics at Allahabad University. The Executive Council initially placed the appellant above the respondents, but later reversed this decision, placing Respondents 4 and 5 above the appellant. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. Alternative Remedy u/s 68:
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy of reference to the Chancellor u/s 68 of the Act was available. The Supreme Court found this dismissal inappropriate, given that the writ petition had been pending for over five years and involved a pure question of law that would likely be litigated further regardless of the Chancellor's decision.

3. Validity and Effect of Personal Promotion u/s 31-A:
Section 31-A of the Act, introduced by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1985, allows for personal promotion of teachers based on length of service and qualifications prescribed by the Statutes. The necessary amendments to the Statutes were made by notification dated 21-2-1985. The Supreme Court held that personal promotions under Section 31-A could only be legally effective from this date. Consequently, the promotion of Respondents 4 and 5 to the grade of Professor under the Personal Promotion Scheme could not be validly made before 21-2-1985.

4. Applicability of Amended Statutes:
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that seniority should be determined based on the amended Statutes as of the date of the Executive Council's decision. Even under the amended Statutes, seniority in the same cadre is determined by the length of continuous service in a substantive capacity. Since the appellant's service as a Professor began on 9-11-1984, and Respondents 4 and 5's valid promotion could only be from 21-2-1985, the appellant was entitled to be placed above Respondents 4 and 5 in seniority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the appellant be treated as senior to Respondents 4 and 5 as Professor in the Physics Department of the University. There was no order as to costs.