Holding

For purposes of CAS promotion, “College” refers only to constituent colleges, not affiliated colleges, so the effective date of promotion is from the date of entry into university service.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether an associate professor who had worked in an affiliated college could have his promotion under the University’s Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) backdated to the date he completed three years of service there. The petitioner argued that the term “College” in the CAS statute should include affiliated colleges, allowing his promotion to be effective from 01‑01‑2009. The University contended that the statute’s preamble and clauses 12.6 and 12.7 limit “College” to constituent colleges, so only service after joining the university on 28‑10‑2013 could be counted for the promotion date. The Court held that for CAS promotions, “College” refers solely to constituent colleges, and past service in an affiliated college cannot determine the effective promotion date. Consequently, the promotion is effective only from the date of entry into university service. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the term “College” in the CAS promotion statute includes affiliated colleges for the purpose of determining eligibility and effective date of promotion.
Whether service rendered in an affiliated college can be counted to fix the effective date of a CAS promotion.
How clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the university’s promotion statute, together with its preamble, should be interpreted.
Whether the promotion can be backdated to a period before the teacher entered service of the university.

Legislation cited

Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000s. 2(2), s. 40(1)(k)

Subjects

Career Advancement SchemePromotionConstituent CollegeAffiliated CollegeStatutory interpretationUniversity serviceKarnataka State Universities Act

Judgment

[2020] 9 S.C.R. 859 859

REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR. A
v.
DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4079 of 2020)
DECEMBER 17, 2020 B
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law:
Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS C
Promotion) – Under statute framed under Karnataka State University
Act – To the post of Professor – Eligibility date – Incumbent teacher
joined the constituent college of the University on 28.10.2013 as
Associate Professor – Prior to that, he was working as Associate
Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009 in the affiliated college
D
of the University – CAS promotion granted to the post of Professor
from 28.10.2013 – Writ Petition claiming his promotion from
01.01.2009 on the ground that on 01.01.2009 he had completed
eligibility criteria – Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High
Court allowed his case and directed to grant him promotion from
01.01.2009 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: For the purpose of E
grant of CAS promotions, the word “College” is to be interpreted,
keeping in mind the preamble of the relevant statute, governing
promotions and not the definition of “College” u/s. 2(2) of the Act
– A harmonious reading of Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute
r/w Preamble thereof makes it clear that the term “College” is
F
referable to only “Constituent College” and not “Affiliated College”
– Therefore, the incumbent teacher is entitled to promotion only
from the date of entry of service into the University and not covering
the period anterior thereto – Statute Governing the Direct
Recruitment, Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)
and Conduct of Interview to the Posts of Professors, Associate G
Professors, Assistant Professors, Principals of Constituent Colleges,
Directors of Physical Education and Librarians under Section
40(1)(k) of KSU Act, 2000 – Preamble; Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 –
Karnataka State University Act, 2000 – s. 2(2).
H
859
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, applies
to all the colleges, including private college. Even private colleges
have to seek affiliation from the jurisdictional University, as such
the College is widely defined in the Act. Definition u/s. 2(2) of
B the Act cannot be readily imported, as defined, for the purpose of
grant of promotions under CAS. For the purpose of grant of
promotions under CAS, the word ‘College’ is to be interpreted,
keeping in mind, the preamble of the Statute, governing
promotions. [Para 17][868-A-B]
C 2. A comprehensive reading of the statute makes it very
clear that for the purpose of granting CAS promotion, the
incumbent teacher must have been holding a substantive
sanctioned post. It is also clear that the incumbent teacher must
be on the “roll and active services of the University or the
College”, on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee
D for selection under CAS Promotion. A harmonious reading of
Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute read with the Preamble
thereof, makes it clear that the term “College” used in the said
statute is referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated
College. [Para 15][866-F-H]
E 3. The High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect namely,
that the first respondent was not in actual service of the University
or of the constituent College, has ordered to extend the benefit
from 01.01.2009. There cannot be any promotion in the University
for the period, when the writ petitioner was not in effective service
F of the University. The University is not expected to order
promotion for the period when he was working in affiliated college.
[Para 16][867-A-B]
4. The High Court, by misconstruing the statute contrary
to its objectives, as mentioned in the preamble liberally construed,
G going beyond the scope of the statute and granted all
consequential benefits, by declaring that the effective date for
promotion was to be 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013. The High
Court has fallen in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of
the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word “colleges”, by
extending the meaning to “affiliated college”. Even the Division
H
REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR. v. 861
DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR.

Bench has committed the same error by recording a finding that A
a magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings
University/Colleges, as used in the paragraph/clause 12.7 of the
Statute. The University has correctly interpreted the various
clauses of the Statute and by giving the benefit of past service,
has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry into the
B
service of the University. [Para 16][867-D-F]
5. Therefore, the incumbent teacher, who is entitled for
promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the
entry of service of such incumbent into 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 C
from the date of entry of first respondent into the University
service, i.e, 28.10.2013. The University is not expected to grant
promotion, covering the period, anterior to the entry of service
of the first respondent into University. [Para 18][868-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4079 D
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Writ Appeal No. 100436 of 2019.
Siddarath Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Kirit Javali, Ninad Dogra, E
Sharanagouda Patil, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, V. N. Raghupathy,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
F
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal is filed by the Karnataka University, at
Dharwad, through its Registrar and another, aggrieved by the judgment
and order dated 02.01.2020, passed in writ appeal No.100436 of 2019,
by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
G
3. By the aforesaid Order, Division Bench of High Court has
dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants herein, calling in
question the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition
No. 100353 of 2018 (S-PRO) dated 13.03.2019 allowing the writ petition

H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A and declaring that the effective date of “Career Advancement Scheme”
(for short ‘CAS’) promotion of the first respondent-writ petitioner was
01.01.2009 and also directed to grant all consequential benefits to him,
as flow from such fixation. In fact, the CAS promotion was already
given to the first respondent- writ petitioner and pay fixation has already
been made, but it was from the date of 28.10.2013.
B
4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that, the first respondent-
writ petitioner had claimed his promotion under CAS, promulgated by
the UGC, to be given effect from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013,
from which date, promotion is given to the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner was earlier working as an Associate Professor, in J.S.S College,
C which is affiliated to Karnataka University. In pursuance of syndicate
Resolution No.24 dated 26.10.2013, the writ petitioner was appointed as
an Associate Professor in the P.G. Department of Studies in Mathematics
in the University. Pursuant to his appointment, he joined in the service of
the University on 28.10.2013 and vide order dated 31.12.2015, his service
D was confirmed with effect from 28.10.2013.
5. By issuing Circular dated 04.07.2013, the University invited
applications for promotion, from eligible Assistant Professors, Associate
professor and Professor (stage 5) under CAS. The first respondent-writ
petitioner made an application in response to the said Circular, for
E promotion to the post of Professor under UGC, CAS. He appeared for
interview on 12.08.2014 before the Board of Appointment (BOA), which
has recommended his case for promotion and accordingly promotion
order was issued on 16.02.2016, promoting the writ petitioner as a
Professor, with effect from 28.10.2013, that is, from the date of his
eligibility, to the said post. He has been promoted to the post of Professor
F with effect from 28.10.2013, taking into consideration his past three years
of service in previous college, where he worked as Associate Professor.
The claim of the first respondent- writ petitioner in the High Court was
that as he has completed three years of service in the cadre of Associate
Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009, as such, he ought to have
G been considered for promotion under CAS from 01.01.2009 instead of
28.10.2013. During the relevant time, neither he was in the service of
the University nor working in any of the constituent Colleges of the
University, but he was in service of J.S.S College, Dharwad, which is an
affiliated College to the Dharwad University. The first respondent- writ
petitioner made representations dated 18.03.2016 and 25.07.2016, in this
H
REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR. v. 863
DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

regard, for which, he was replied by the University on 04.08.2017. The A
claim of the writ petitioner, for grant of CAS promotion from 01.01.2009,
was placed before the Syndicateof the University, and the Syndicate in
its meeting held on 19.07.2017, vide Resolution No.36, has rejected the
claim, stating that there is no provision to grant the said benefit from
01.01.2009, as claimed. In accordance with the Resolution of the
B
Syndicate, an endorsement came to be issued by the University on
04.08.2017, a copy which was served on the writ petitioner.
6. Challenging the Resolution of the Syndicate of the University,
bearing Resolution No. 36, dated 19.07.2017 and the endorsement dated
04.08.2017, the first respondent has filed writ petition No. 100353 of
2018 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, questioning C
the aforesaid resolution, endorsement and by seeking further
consequential directions to fix the eligibility date from 01.01.2009 for
promotion to the post of Professor under CAS, in mathematics, instead
of 28.10.2013 and to reconsider his representation dated 10.08.2017.
The claim of the first respondent-writ petitioner was opposed, by filing D
the written note of objections in the High Court but the learned Single
Judge of the High Court, by Order dated 13.03.2019, allowed the writ
petition, by recording a finding that the writ petitioner completed three
years of teaching by 01.01.2009, as such effective date should have
been 01.01.2009. Learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the
view that his service in affiliated College is also to be considered for the E
purpose of promotion under CAS and consequently writ petitioner is
entitled for promotion from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.
7. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, the
appellants herein preferred the writ appeal in writ appeal No. 100436 of
2019 and by Order dated 02.01.2020, the said writ appeal is dismissed, F
confirming the Order of the learned Single Judge, by recording a finding
that the magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings
“University/Colleges”, as found in Clause 12.7 of the Statute. The Division
Bench has held that the word ‘colleges’ used in the Statute, not only
includes constituent colleges, but also includes other colleges, which are G
affiliated to Karnataka University.
8. We have heard Sri Kirit Javali, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-University and Sri Siddarath Bhatnagar, learned senior
counsel appearing for the first respondent- writ petitioner.
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A 9. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we have
perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.
10. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that, it is
an admitted position that, prior to joining the appellant- University,
respondent No.1- writ petitioner was working as Associate Professor
B from 01.01.2006 till 23.10.2013 (with an affiliated College) and thereafter,
he joined the University as Assistant Professor. It is submitted that at
the time of recruitment, respondent No.1 did not apply for the post of
Professor, as he was well aware that he was not eligible for the same.
The writ petitioner was promoted as Professor vide Order dated
26.10.2013, he joined the University service with effect from 28.10.2013.
C It is submitted that the effective date of promotion of respondent No.1,
for the post of Professor, cannot be from any date prior to 28.10.2013,
as at that point of time, he was admittedly not in the employment of
University. Further it is brought to the notice by the learned counsel that
very preamble of the statute makes it clear that the candidate must have
D been on the rolls of the University or a Constituent College. It is further
submitted that 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. It is submitted that
as per the statute framed by the University, the incumbent teacher was
E required to be on the rolls of the ‘constituent College’ only and not
‘affiliated College’. It is submitted that interpretation accorded to the
statute by the High Court, is improper, as is evident from the meaningful
reading of complete statute, as well as the preamble thereof.
11. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri Siddarath
F Bhatnagar, appearing for the first respondent has submitted that the Statute
framed by the University for effecting promotions in CAS, applies to
Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Principals of
Constituent Colleges, Directors of Physical education and Librarians
and allied posts. It is submitted that the term “principals of Constituent
G Colleges”, ought to be read disjunctively, as against the other posts,
mentioned in the provision, since it appears only qua a category of
principals and not other posts. By referring to the definition under Section
2(2) of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, it is submitted that term
“College” includes ‘Constituent College’ as well as ‘affiliated College’.
It is further submitted that as the High Court has correctly interpreted
H
REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR. v. 865
DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

the relevant statute and has recorded a finding that the effective date of A
promotion should have been 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013, there are
no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
12. Before we consider the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels on both sides, we deem it appropriate to refer to certain relevant
provisions of the statute, governing the direct recruitment, promotion B
under CAS, framed by the University. The preamble and the title of the
statute, read as under:
“PREAMBLE: Consequent upon the extension of UGC pay
scales as revised from 01.01.2006 in respect of Teachers,
Librarians and Physical education Personnel of Universities and C
Constituent Colleges and issuance of letter No. 1-32/2006-U II/
UI-I (i) dated 31.12.2008 of the Government of the India, Ministry
of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher
Education, New Delhi and Notification No.F-3-1/2009 (PS) dated
23.09.2009 of the University Grants Commission New Delhi and
Government of Karnataka Order No. ED 37 UNE 2009, Bangalore D
dated 24.12.2009 prescribing the revised norms of recruitment
and qualification for appointment and promotion of Professors,
Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Physical Education
Directors and Librarians, it has become imperative to frame the
statutes for recruitment and promotion of the above mentioned E
personnel in the Karnatak University, Dharwad.
TITLE: 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 F
Physical Education and Librarians under Section 40(1)(k) of KSU
Act, 2000.”
13. Clause 12 of the Statute deals with the Screening-cum-
Evaluation Committee for CAS Promotion. Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the
statute read as under: G
“12.6 CAS promotions being a personal promotion to the
incumbent teacher holding a substantive sanctioned post, on
superannuation of the individual incumbent, the said post shall
revert back to its original cadre.
H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A 12.7 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.”
14. Clause 13 of the statute deals with the Stages of Promotion
under CAS of Incumbent and Newly Appointed Assistant Professors,
B Associate Professors, Professors. Clauses 13.7 and 13.8 of the statute,
read as under:
“13.7 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
C this Statute, to move to the next higher grade (stage 4) and to be
designated as Associate Professor.
13.8 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
D 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
E 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.”
15. Clause 17 of the statute provides for Counting of Past Service
for Direct Recruitment and Promotion Under CAS. A comprehensive
F reading of the statute makes it very clear that for the purpose of granting
CAS promotion, the incumbent teacher must have holding a substantive
sanctioned post, as much as CAS promotion being a personal promotion
to the incumbent teacher and on superannuation of the individual
incumbent, the said post shall revert back to its original cadre. It is also
clear that the incumbent teacher must be on the “roll and active services
G
of the University or the College”, on the date of consideration by the
Selection Committee for selection under CAS Promotion. A harmonious
reading of Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute read with the Preamble
thereof, makes it clear that the term “College” used in the said statute is
referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated College.
H
REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR. v. 867
DR. PRABHUGOUDA & ANR. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

16. The High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect namely, that A
the first respondent was not in actual service of the University or of the
constituent College, has ordered to extend the benefit from 01.01.2009,
on the ground that he has completed three years of service, by working
as Assistant Professor in Mathematics in UGC pay scale with effect
from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009. There cannot be any promotion in the
B
University for the period where the writ petitioner was not in effective
service of the University. The University is not expected to order
promotion for the period when he was working in affiliated college. The
High Court, by mere mathematical calculation, by basing on the service
certificate which is “Annexure D” before the High Court, has held that
as he has completed three years of service as Assistant Professor in C
UGC scale and therefore the effective date of promotion should be
01.01.2009 and not 28.10.2013, as granted by the University. Further,
the High Court has fell in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of
the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word “colleges”, by extending
to “affiliated college”. Even the Division Bench has also committed the
D
same error by recording a finding that a magnanimous interpretation is
to be given for the wordings University/Colleges, as used in the paragraph/
clause 12.7 of the Statute. The University has correctly interpreted the
various clauses of the Statute and by giving the benefit of past service,
has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry into the service
of the University. It is also to be noticed that at the time of appointment E
itself, though the writ petitioner has completed three years of service,
fully knowing that he was not eligible for appointment as a Professor, he
has not claimed the post of Professor. Even the representations filed by
the writ petitioner indicate that he claimed notional service, in spite of
the same, the High Court, by misconstruing the statute contrary to its
F
objectives, as mentioned in the preamble liberally construed, going beyond
the scope of the statute and granted all consequential benefits, by declaring
that the effective date for promotion was to be 01.01.2009 instead of
28.10.2013.
17. We do not find any substance in the argument made by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that the term G
“principals of Constituent Colleges” ought to be read disjunctively as
against the other posts mentioned in the provision. If it is to be read in
the manner as sought to be argued by learned counsel, same will run
contrary to the objectives and preamble of the statute itself. Even the
submission of the learned counsel relying on the definition under Section H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R.

A 2(2) of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, also does not render any
assistance to support his case. Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000,
applies to all the colleges, which includes private college. Even private
colleges have to seek affiliation from the jurisdictional University, as
such the College is widely defined in the Act. Said definition cannot be
readily imported, as defined, for the purpose of grant of promotions under
B
CAS. For the purpose of grant of promotions under CAS, the word
‘College’ is to be interpreted, keeping in mind, the preamble of the statute,
governing promotions.
18. In that view of the matter, we are of the clear view that, the
incumbent teacher, who is entitled for promotion under the scheme, is to
C be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into
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. The University is not expected to grant promotion, covering
D the period, anterior to the entry of service of the first respondent into
University. As such, we are of the view that the University has rightly
given the benefit of promotion from 28.10.2013.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil appeal is allowed, and
judgment and Order dated 02.01.2020, passed by the High Court in writ
E appeal No. 100436 of 2019 (S-PRO), is hereby quashed and set aside
and consequently the writ petition filed by the first respondent in writ
petition No. 100353 of 2018 (C-PRO) stands dismissed. No order as to
costs.

F Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.

G

H