9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he report received from the Controlling Officer of the candidate; for the second promotion, 50% weightage will be given to efficiency, out of which 25% would be allotted for work performance and 25% would be allotted to a written test for ascertaining the subject competence of the candidate and for the third promotion, the efficiency was to be determined on the basis of recording in the personal file and the report of the Controlling Officer. The Resolution of the Executive Council of the University taken in its meeting on 26.06.1995 was to be implemented with immediate effect. 3. Aggrieved by the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University, some of the appellants filed the Writ Petition being C.O. No.17139 (W) of 1995 and a lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of their staff. Pursuant to the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench, the proposal was sent to the State Government and the State Government by its order dated 10.10.2002 has approved the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995. 5. The contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995 will be effective only from 10.10.2002 when the State Government approved the Resolution and will not apply to any promotions made prior to 10.10.2002 because under Section 21 (xiii) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 the Executive Council of the University could determine the terms and conditions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lution of the Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995, therefore, hold good and now that the State Government has approved the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995 by order dated 10.10.2002, the promotions made on the basis of the Resolution dated 26.06.1995 of the Executive Council of the University hold good and cannot be set aside by this Court. 7. In Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition), the word "approval" has been explained thus: "the act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to some act or thing done by another." Hence, approval to an act or decision can also be subsequent to the act or decision. 8. In U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved it loses its force. Only when a permission is required, the decision does not become effective till permission is obtained. (See U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd.)." 10. Section 21 (xiii) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 is quoted herein below:- "21. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Executive Council shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions: (i) to (xii) ........................ (xiii) to determine, with the approval of the State Government, the terms and conditions of service of Librarians and non-teaching staff." The words used in Section 21 (xiii) are not "with the permission of the State Government" nor "with the approval of the State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
