# Banaras Hindu University Varanasi v. Dr. Bhaktipurtra Rohtam & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 63
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 788 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, C.J. Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/banaras-hindu-university-varanasi-v-dr-bhaktipurtra-rohtam-anr-53184
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Law-Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,1952-Chapter VIII, Rule 5-Banaras
Hindu University challenged a judgment
by the Single Judge, which had directed
the university to grant notional promotion
under
the
Career
Advancement
Scheme(CAS)
and
consider
reemployment of Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohtam, a
retired Associate Professor-He retired in
December 2022 and later sought notional
promotion
and
re-employment-The
University denied his requests citing the
absence
of
Executive
Council
and
reliance on the UGC Guidelines of 2008,
which allow re-employment only for
retired
professors,
not
Associate
professors-The
court
held
that
the
unavailability of the Executive Council or
failure
to
constitute
a
Selection
Committee
cannot
prejudice
the
teacher's claim- The judgment of the
single Judge was modified-Dr. Rohtam's
promotion claim must be assessed via
Screening cum Evaluation CommitteeSince
Dr.
Rohtam
applied
before
retirement and met eligibility criteria,
BHU must constitute a Screening-cumEvaluation Committee to examine his
claim-If found eligible, notional promotion
with consequential monetary benefits- the
Court clarified that Regulation 2.1 of the
UGC Regulation, 2018, while permitting
re-employment, is subject to the UGC
Guidelines of 2008-The bench criticized
the University for failing to conduct CAS
promotions Since November 2020, calling
it an artificial vaccum caused by the
administration-It emphasized that the
Vice chancellor had powers under the BHU
Act to act in urgent situations, including
constituting committees.(Para 1 to 44)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,169 of 67,635. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39169 for what follows._

4 All. Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Vs. Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohatam & Anr.
63
which are required to be performed by a
principal. Hence, a person who is appointed
as an officiating principal under the Statutes
of the University until a regularly selected
candidate is made available, would be
entitled to the payment of salary attached to
the post of principal.

17. We are thus of the view that
headmaster's salary ought not be denied to the
assistant teachers when they are regularly
performing work on the higher post of
headmaster for the last several years.

18. Lastly, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the direction of learned
Single Judge to pay the salary for the post of
headmaster since 2014 is otherwise impermissible
in as much as no grievance was earlier raised by
the writ petitioners with regard to denial of salary
for the higher post and the writ petitions have been
filed only in the year 2022 to 2024. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
Union of India and others Versus Tarsem
Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 to contend that at best a
direction for arrears up to a period of three years
could have been issued in favour of the writ
petitioners. The judgment in Tarsen Singh
(supra) has been followed in subsequent judgment
of Supreme Court in Bichitrananda Behera
Versus State of Orissa and others, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1307. A Lucknow Bench of this
Court in Urmila Devi Pal Versus State of U.P.
and others, [2023(6) ADJ (DB)(LB)] also
followed the similar judgment.

19. We find substance in the contention
of Sri K. Shahi that the direction to pay arrears
could not have been issued in a mechanical
manner particularly when no grievance was raised
by such persons earlier. Though it is stated that
previous representations were made by the writ
petitioners but such grievance apparently was not
pressed till filing of the writ we are thus of the
view that even if the petitioners have continued for
long as headmaster the direction to pay the arrears
could only extend up to three years prior to filing
of the writ petition.

20. In view of the discussions and
deliberations held above this bunch of special
appeal stands disposed of with following
observation: (i) we grant liberty to the concerned
District Basic Education Officer to examine and
determine the factual issue as to whether the
petitioner has experience of five years and has
actually been continuing as headmaster of the
institution; (ii) if the petitioners have continued for
long as headmaster the direction to pay the arrears
would only extend up to three years prior to filing
of the writ petition; (iii) we also make it open for
the District Basic Education Officer to ensure at
the district level that only senior assistant teachers
are allowed to officiate in the educational
institution, as far as, it is possible. This would
eliminate possibility of heart burning on account
of junior assistant teachers functioning as
officiating headmaster; (iv) requisite exercise in
this regard shall be undertaken within a period of
two months and the amount in term of above
determination shall be calculated and released
without any further loss of time.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 63
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,
C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 788 of 2024

Banaras Hindu University Varanasi
 .Appellant
Versus
Dr. Bhaktipurtra Rohtam & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hem Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Priyansh

Service
Law-Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,1952-Chapter VIII, Rule 5-Banaras
Hindu University challenged a judgment
by the Single Judge, which had directed
the university to grant notional promotion
under
the
Career
Advancement
Scheme(CAS)
and
consider
reemployment of Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohtam, a
retired Associate Professor-He retired in
December 2022 and later sought notional
promotion
and
re-employment-The
University denied his requests citing the
absence
of
Executive
Council
and
reliance on the UGC Guidelines of 2008,
which allow re-employment only for
retired
professors,
not
Associate
professors-The
court
held
that
the
unavailability of the Executive Council or
failure
to
constitute
a
Selection
Committee
cannot
prejudice
the
teacher's claim- The judgment of the
single Judge was modified-Dr. Rohtam's
promotion claim must be assessed via
Screening cum Evaluation CommitteeSince
Dr.
Rohtam
applied
before
retirement and met eligibility criteria,
BHU must constitute a Screening-cumEvaluation Committee to examine his
claim-If found eligible, notional promotion
with consequential monetary benefits- the
Court clarified that Regulation 2.1 of the
UGC Regulation, 2018, while permitting
re-employment, is subject to the UGC
Guidelines of 2008-The bench criticized
the University for failing to conduct CAS
promotions Since November 2020, calling
it an artificial vaccum caused by the
administration-It emphasized that the
Vice chancellor had powers under the BHU
Act to act in urgent situations, including
constituting committees.(Para 1 to 44)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sirsi Municipality Vs Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis

2. Sukhdev Singh & ors. Vs Bhagatram Sardar
Singh Raghuvanshi & anr.

3. Ambica Quarry Works etc. Vs St. of Guj. &
Ors. & Commr. of Police, Bom. Vs Gordhandas
Bhanji
Julius Vs Lord Bishop of Oxford.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ajit Kumar Singh,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant-respondents and Shri Sanjeev
Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Priyansh, learned counsel for the
opposite party-petitioner.

ORDER PASSED BY WRIT
COURT

2. The instant intra court special
appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
High Court Rules has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
13.2.2024 passed by learned Single Judge
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18332 of
2023 (Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohtam v. Banaras
Hindu University & Ors.), whereby the writ
petition has been allowed. The order passed
by the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the
Banaras
Hindu
University1
dated
22.5.2023 and 09.10.2023 have been
quashed with further direction to Vice
Chancellor to immediately constitute a
Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee to
look into and screen out documents of self
appraisal etc. submitted by the petitioner on
04.11.2021
received
in
Career
Advancement Scheme2 Promotion Cell on
05.01.2022 and take a decision whether the
petitioner was eligible on merit on the basis
4 All. Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Vs. Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohatam & Anr.
65
of documents produced by him to be
promoted as Professor under CAS. It was
further directed that if it finds favour with
the claim of the petitioner, it shall accord
notional promotion to the petitioner with
consequential benefits of pay in question as
admissible to such promotional post of
Professor for revision of pension and other
retirement dues with effect from the date
the
petitioner
attained
the
age
of
superannuation and accordingly arrears of
difference of pension and other retirement
dues shall be paid. Learned Single Judge
has also directed the BHU to accord reemployment to the petitioner as teacher in
the Department of Dharmagam, Faculty of
Sanskrit Vidya Dharm Vigyan, BHU,
Varanasi, if vacancy exists and appropriate
order shall be passed in this regard within
three weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order. For ready
reference, the operative portion of the
judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 is
reproduced as under:-

 ".............44.
In
Rejoinder
affidavit pleadings have been raised vide
paragraph 12 that U.G.C. guidelines being
statutory would prevail and that it provides
for extension of retired teachers upon reemployment upto 70 years of age and it has
also been pleaded vide paragraph 13 of the
rejoinder affidavit that post still exists in
the department. Thus, it is sought to be
pleaded that selection could not be held
despite advertisement.

45. I have already held above
that U.G.C. Regulations would prevail over
the guidelines and whenever guidelines are
contrary to regulations, these guidelines
would be taken to have stood repealed. So
if
regulations
provide
for
Assistant
Professor and Associate Professor also to
be entitled for re-employment, petitioner
would be equally entitled. Since it is not the
case
of
respondent-
University
that
petitioner is not entitled to re-employment
on his merit, it is held that he is entitled for
re-employment
as
teacher
in
the
department of Dharmagam if vacancy is
existing.

 46. Thus, in view of the above,
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
orders passed by the Registrar and Vice
Chancellor
dated
22.05.2023
and
09.10.2023; respectively, impugned in the
writ petition and filed as Annexure-1 & 2,
are
hereby
quashed
and
following
directions are issued:-

(i) The Vice Chancellor shall
immediately constitute a Screening-cumEvaluation Committee to look into and
screen out documents of self appraisal etc.
submitted by the petitioner on 04.11.2021
received in CAS promotion cell on
05.01.2022 and take a decision whether
petitioner was eligible on merits on the
basis of documents produced by him to be
promoted as professor under CAS and if it
finds favour with the claim of the
petitioner,
it
shall
accord
notional
promotion
to
the
petitioner
with
consequential benefits of pay in question as
admissible to such promotional post of
Professor for revision of pension and other
retirement dues only w.e.f. the date
petitioner
attained
his
age
of
superannuation and, accordingly, arrears
of
difference
of
pension
and
other
retirement dues shall be paid. Appropriate
decision shall be taken within a maximum
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

(ii) The respondent- University is
directed
to
give
re-employment
to
petitioner as teacher in the department of
Dharmagam, Faculty of Sanskrit Vidya
Dharm Vigyan, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi if vacancy exists and appropriate
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order shall be passed in the above regard
within three weeks of production of
certified copy of this order.

47. Cost made easy."

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Facts in brief giving rise to this
intra Court appeal are as under:

4. The appellant-BHU is a Central
University enacted by Act No.XVI of
19153. The services of employees of BHU
are governed by the Act as well as Rules
and Regulations framed under the Act. The
BHU being Central University is also
governed
by
the
Rules,
Regulation,
Guidelines & Office Memorandum issued
from time to time by the Central
Government
and
University
Grants
Commission4. The Executive Council of
BHU shall, subject to control of BHU, be
Executive Body and shall conduct all
administrative affairs of the BHU. As per
Section
18
(k)
of
BHU
Act,
the
emoluments, term and conditions of service
of employees of BHU is governed by
Ordinance framed by Executive Council.
As per Section 18 (3) of BHU Act, the
Ordinances may be amended, repealed or
added to at any time by the Executive
Council of the BHU. The Statute 14 of the
BHU Act deals with constitution of the
Executive
Council.
The
UGC
vide
notification dated 18.07.2018 in exercise of
powers conferred under Clause (e) and (g)
of sub-section (I) of Section 26 read with
Section 14 of the University Grants
Commission
Act,
19565
and
in
supersession of the "UGC Regulations on
Minimum Qualification for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Measures for
the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education
2010"
together
with
all
amendments made therein from time to
time, has framed "UGC Regulations on
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Measures for
the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education, 2018"6.

5. The opposite party-petitioner
was appointed on the post of Lecturer/
Assistant Professor in the Department of
Dharmagam Faculty of Sanskrit Vidya
Dharm Vigyan, BHU, Varanasi vide order
dated 02.11.2006 of the BHU. Later on he
was confirmed on the post of Lecturer/
Asstt. Professor in the said department vide
order dated 30/31.01.2008. Thereafter, he
was promoted on the post of Associate
Professor (Stage-IV) in the Department of
Dharmagam vide order dated 04.11.2018
under the CAS and joined on 04.11.2018
itself. According to the CAS of the BHU
Teachers, the petitioner was eligible for
promotion on the post of Professor after
completion of 3 years of service in the
Associate Professor Grade i.e. 04.11.2021.
As the Selection Committee was not
convened,
his
candidature
was
not
considered for promotion. As such he
moved
detailed
representation
dated
21.09.2022 to the BHU. However, nothing
was done in this regard. Eventually the
petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2022 as
Associate Professor (Stage-IV). It is
relevant to indicate that he was accorded
sessions benefit and he continued to impart
education in the department till 30.06.2023.

6.
The
petitioner
made
two
representations
dated
14.03.2023
and
09.06.2023 to the Vice Chancellor, BHU
requesting to promote him on the post of
Professor in the Department of Dharmagam
w.e.f. 04.11.2021 under CAS and further
appoint him on contractual basis for a
4 All. Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Vs. Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohatam & Anr.
67
period of five years till the age of 70 years
on contract basis in accordance with
Regulation 2.1 of the Regulations, 2018.
The representation of the petitioner was
turned down by the respondent on
23.05.2023 on the ground that since the
petitioner had retired as an Associate
Professor and not as a Professor, thus, he
was not entitled to be considered for grant
of engagement on contractual basis till 70
years. The said order was challenged in
Writ-A No.11409 of 2023 (Dr. Bhaktiputra
Rohtam v. Union of India & Ors.). Finally,
the said writ petition was disposed of on
07.08.2023, the operative portion of same,
for ready reference, is reproduced as
under:-

 "6. This Court entertained the
writ petition on 18.07.2023 and pass the
following orders.-

"Sri
Sanjiv
Singh,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Priyansh, who
appears for the writ petitioner, has
submitted that the order dated 22.5.2023
passed by the fifth respondent, Registrar
(Administration)
Recruitment
and
Assessment
Cell,
Banaras
Hindu
University,
Varanasi
proceeds
on
misconception of facts and law particularly
in view of the fact that as per the U.G.C.
Regulations dated 30.6.2010 in particular
"UGC
Regulations
On
Minimum
Qualifications
For
Appointment
Of
Teachers And Other Academic Staff In
Universities And Colleges And Measures
For The Maintenance Of Standards In
Higher Education, 2010". Clause 2.3.2
itself
provides
for
reemployment
on
contract
basis
beyond
the
age
of
superannuation till attaining 70 years
subject to availability of vacant positions
and fitness, teachers such as Assistant
Professor,
Associate
Professor
and
Professor.

According to Sri Singh, Senior
Advocate on the date of his retirement as
on Associate Professor thus he stands
covered by the said Regulations. According
to Sri Singh, he was legally entitled be
accorded promotion as a Professor as per
the Regulations but he had been denied the
same thus, he can be accorded notional
promotion
and
then
considered
for
extension.

Sri Hem Pratap Singh, who
appears for the University has relied upon
the U.G.C. guideline dated 15.2.2008 while
drawing attention towards Clause 3 at
page 2 of the same so as to contend that
under the eligible category, the category of
superannuated
teachers
eligible
for
reemployment is of Professor only and not
any other post. According to him the
Regulations of the U.G.C. dated 15.2.2008
has not been superseded by virtue of the
U.G.C. Regulations dated 30.6.2010.
 Matter requires consideration.
 Sri H.P. Singh, submits that he
shall be filing a counter affidavit within a
week.

Put up this case on 27th July,
2023 as fresh."

7. Pursuant to the order passed
by this Court a counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the University sworn by
the Law Officer, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi dated 05.08.2023.
 8. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned
Senior Counsel on instructions submits that
he does not proceed to file any rejoinder to
the counter affidavit and according to him
the writ petition be decided at the fresh
stage itself without seeking any further
response.

9. With the consent of the parties
and the joint statement made by them that
they do not propose to file any further
affidavits the writ petition is being decided
at the fresh stage.
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned
Senior Counsel has sought to argue that
there are two facets of the matter, firstly the
fact that the writ petitioner was entitled to
be considered for promotion under CAS
from the post of Associate Professor to the
post of Professor in terms of the UGC
guidelines governing the field by the name
and nomenclature of UGC Regulation On
Minimum Qualification For Appointment
Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In
Universities And Colleges And Measures
For Maintenance Of Standard In Higher
Education, 2018 and according to him the
promotion exercise ought to have been
conducted in accordance with the said
regulation in particular Clause 6.1 which
deals with the assessment Clause 6.3 which
deals for the criteria for promotion under
Career Advancement Scheme laid down
under the regulation and according to him
Clause 6.3-I an exercise is to be
undertaken by the Selection Committee
within the three months in advance from
the due date subject to the fulfillment of the
candidates for being accorded promotion
under CAS and the process should be
completed within six months from the
receipt of the application. He further
submits that had the said procedure been
put to service and completed within the
time bound period the writ petitioner
obviously would have been considered for
promotion on the post of Professor. Since
the said procedure was not adopted and the
proceedings were not drawn for conducting
exercise for promotion under CAS thus, the
petitioner's legitimate right for being
promoted on the post of Professor stood
extinguished and post retirement now he is
being denuded for being considered for
extension as a Professor for a further
period of 5 years post attainment of 65
years till 70 years. The second argument is
this that in the wake of the provisions
contained under Clause 2.3.2 of the UGC
notification dated 30 June, 2010 as well as
the UGC notification dated 18.08.2018
Clause 2.1 which pari materia the earlier
provisions he had a legitimate claim for
being granted extension.

11.
Countering
the
said
submission, Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the University, on the other
hand, submits that the claims so set up by
the writ petitioner is not tenable in the eyes
of law as mere attainment of the
qualifications and the eligibility does not
ipso facto confer any right to be promoted
as the same is subject to various criteria
which is in the shape of the assessment to
be done by the Selection Committee duly
constituted by the University as per the Act
and the statutes and further the availability
of the vacancies. He, thus, submits that
though the writ petitioner claims to be
possessing the relevant qualifications and
might be for whatever reasons the meetings
of the selection committee was not
convened but that does not confer an
indefeasible right as the writ petitioner
himself was happy about what he had been
conferred with as he though claims to have
represented on two occasions but post
retirement he also was granted the session
benefit and now he is coming in writ
jurisdiction claiming his right. Sri Hem
Pratap Singh further submits that though
the writ petitioner seeks extension on the
ground that he was not made entitled for
being promoted on the post of Professor,
however, again the issue arises, i.e. with
regard to the fact that the there is no
vacancy lying vacant so as to give a room
and to accommodate him is there. Sri Singh
who appears for the respondent further
argues that though the legal proposition is
being sought to be argued by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the
wake of the provisions contained under
4 All. Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Vs. Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohatam & Anr.
69
Clause 2.3.2 of the 2010 Regulations and
Clause 2.1 of the 2018 the Assistant
Professors,
Associate
Professors
and
Professors are to be considered for reemployment on contractual basis and they
would occupy the field and the model
guidelines will not play into role as the
regulations are after the issuance of the
model guidelines of the year 2008, 2010
and 2018 but it would also not be matter to
be gone into at this stage particularly when
there is no post lying vacant.

12. At this stage, Sri Sanjeev
Singh learned Senior Counsel who appears
for the writ petitioner on instructions
submits that the writ petitioner shall be
representing his cause before the third
respondent, Vice Chancellor, Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi raising all his
grievances, thus, he confines the relief in
such a manner.

13. On such a submission being
made by Sri Sanjeev Singh learned Senior
Counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Hem
Pratap Singh has invited the attention of
the court towards Annexure 7 which starts
from page 46 and concludes at page 51 of
the paper book reference whereof has been
given in paragraph 7 of the writ petition so
as to contend that the writ petitioner claims
to have represented the matter before the
Visitor of B.H.U Varanasi and two parallel
proceedings cannot be permitted to be
availed by the writ petitioner.

14. To such a submission, Sri
Sanjeev Kumar Singh submits that he has
sent his complaint/representations through
E Mail and he does not propose to press it
and he submits that the same be treated to
be redundant as the writ petition is being
decided by this Court itself. Sri Hem
Pratap Singh submits that if it is the stand
of Sri Sanjeev Singh learned Senior
Counsel for the writ petitioner then he has
no objection, he submits that a fresh
representation be preferred by the writ
petitioner before the third respondent who
shall advert to all the legal issues.

15. Now since in the writ
petition itself an order has been subject
matter of challenge dated 22.05.2203
which according to the writ petitioner
does not have any legs to stand for the
reasons mentioned that it only takes into
the 2008 guidelines which accord to
learned Senior Counsel for the writ
petitioner would not play a role in view
of the fact that there are 2010 and 2018
regulations framed by the University,
thus, this Court is of the opinion that the
writ petition be disposed of granting
liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a
comprehensive representation along with
the self attested copy of the writ petition
before
the
third
respondent,
Vice
Chancellor, B.H.U., Varanasi who shall
consider each and every aspect of the
matter within a period of two months
from the date of production of certified
copy of the order.

16. Since an order has been put
to challenge and as per the parties in
question including Sri Hem Pratap Singh
while deciding the representation of the
writ petitioner the order which is being
subject matter of challenge would not
come in the way as independent
application of mind will be made by the
third respondent, thus, this Court in the
circumstances of the case is declining
to quash the same but the said order
shall abide by the final outcome of the
orders to be passed therein.

17. Needless to point out that
the writ petition has been decided on
the basis of the statement made by the
parties and, thus, passing of this order
may not be construed to be an
expression
that
this
Court
has
adjudicated on the merits of the matter.
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18.
With
the
aforesaid
observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of.

7. In response to the aforesaid
direction issued by the Writ Court, the Vice
Chancellor, BHU had considered and
rejected the claim of the petitioner vide
order dated 09.10.2023. The orders dated
22.05.2023 and 09.10.2023 were again
subjected to challenge in writ petition in
question, to wit, Writ-A No.18332 of 2023
(Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohtam v. Banaras Hindu
University & Ors.). The said writ petition
was pressed before learned Single Judge
for two reliefs viz. (I) Promotion under the
CAS from the date he became entitled and
(II) for re-employment as a teacher in the
department as per Regulation 2.1 of the
Regulations, 2018. Eventually, the said writ
petition was allowed vide order dated
13.02.2024, which is impugned in this intra
court
special
appeal.
The
relevant
paragraphs 44 to 46 of the judgment dated
13.02.2024 have already been reproduced
in paragraph 2 of this judgment.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
APPELLANTS

8. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
had vehemently argued that the impugned
order passed by learned Single Judge is
manifestly erroneous and the finding so
returned is also contrary to Regulations 2.1,
5, 6, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the Regulations,
2018. In an arbitrary manner, learned
Single Judge has also overlooked the
mandatory provisions of Clause 5, 6 and
6.2, which also deal with constitution of
Selection Committee and guidelines on
selection procedure. Moreso, selection
procedure is enumerated in detail in
Regulation 2018, which would not only be
applicable for direct recruitment but also
for
promotion
under
CAS.
For
considering the candidature under CAS,
the
Selection
Committee
is
to
be
constituted. There is also prescribed
criteria for promotion of Associate
Professor (Academic Level 13A) to
Professor (Academic Level 14). (Ref.
Regulation 6.4 C IV (ii) of Regulations,
2018). It was contended that while
dealing with the matter, learned Single
Judge has erred in law and returned the
erroneous finding, which is contrary to
the Scheme in question. He submitted
that by no stretch of imagination the
Statutory
Selection
Committee
as
contemplated under Regulations 2018,
could be bypassed as such the direction of
learned Single Judge directing the Vice
Chancellor to constitute Screening-cumEvaluation Committee for screening of
documents and if his claim finds favour, he
shall be accorded notional promotion with
consequential benefits is contrary to the
Regulations, 2018.

9.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing
for
the
appellant
further
submitted that while passing the impugned
order, learned Single Judge has not only
directed for considering the promotion but
in arbitrary manner had also directed to
consider the claim of the petitioneropposite party for considering his reemployment as a teacher in the department,
if vacancy exists. He submitted that the
BHU, while filing the counter affidavit, had
taken a specific stand that since November,
2020 to till date, no selection committee for
promotion of teachers under CAS has been
conducted in the University. After expiry of
tenure of Executive Council in June, 2021
to till date, the Executive Council has not
been
constituted
in
the
University.
Therefore, the promotion of the petitioner
4 All. Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Vs. Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohatam & Anr.
71
under CAS could not be considered by the
University due to non-availability of
appointing authority i.e. Executive Council.

10. He vehemently submitted that
the
learned
Single
Judge
has
also
misconstrued in interpreting the Regulation
6.3 (V) of the Regulations, 2018, which
provides, "For the promotion under the
CAS, the applicant teacher must be on the
role and in active service of the University/
College on the date of consideration by the
Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the
instant
matter,
the
petitioner
was
superannuated way back on 31.12.2022. As
he was not on roll of the University, the
direction of learned Single Judge is totally
misdirected and contrary to the Scheme.

11. He submitted that being a
Central University, the BHU has to follow
the instructions/ guidelines/ Rules issued by
the Government of India and the UGC
under the UGC Act from time to time in
accordance with the provisions contained in
Ordinance of BHU for selection of teaching
and non-teaching post either by direct
recruitment
or
by
promotion.
He
emphatically
argued
that
the
UGC
Guidelines, which were issued for reemployment of superannuated teachers in
the Central Universities in the year 2008
has
not
been
superseded
by
the
Regulations, 2018 and still holds the field.
There is no conflict between UGC Model
Guidelines
for
Re-employment
of
Superannuated
Teachers,
20087
and
Regulations, 2018. Moreso, in case the
Guidelines, 2008 goes, then there would be
complete chaos and vacuum. Both the
Guidelines, 2008 and Regulations, 2018
hold different field. Learned Single Judge
was not justified in holding that the UGC
Regulations
would
prevail
over
the
guidelines and whenever guidelines are
contrary to Regulations, these guidelines
would be taken to have stood repealed.

12. He further submitted that the
finding returned in para 45 of the
impugned judgment and order was infact
uncalled for and the same would have
very serious ramifications in the Central
Universities. Learned Single Judge has
nowhere considered that the Guidelines,
2008 deals with the re-employment of
superannuated teachers and eligibility
criteria of superannuated teachers eligible
for re-employment. Successively, the
same has been followed and while
rejecting the claim he has also relied
upon Guidelines, 2008. There was no
conflict between Guidelines, 2008 and
Regulations, 2018 and both hold different
fields and as such the finding returned by
learned Single Judge in para 45 is
perverse.

13. He lastly submitted that the
learned Single Judge had failed to take note
of Regulation 2.1, wherein it is also
provided
further
that
all
such
reemployment
shall
be
strictly
in
accordance with the guidelines prescribed
by the
UGC
from time to time.
Regulation 2.1 clearly deals with the
situation,
wherein
subject
to
the
availability of vacant positions and
fitness, teachers may be re-employed on
contract appointment beyond the age of
superannuation. He, therefore, submitted
that no such direction can be issued,
which is contrary to BHU Act, Statute
and Ordinance of University nor any such
mandamus can be issued directing the
University to pass order, which is directly
in conflict with the Regulations, 2018.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
OPPOSITE PARTY
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. Per contra, Shri Sanjeev Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner-opposite party has vehemently
contended that it is not in dispute that the
petitioner was inhering all the requisite
qualification/ experience and fulfilled the
benchmark, which is required to be
considered as Professor under CAS. His
candidature was liable to be considered
under CAS on 04.11.2021. Towards his
claim, without any delay, he had submitted
complete details on a format in accordance
with Regulations, 2018, which is required
for selection and assessment under CAS.
Admittedly the application was received in
the Selection and Assessment Cell of BHU
on 05.01.2022. He was accorded sessions
benefit and he continued in the department
till 30.06.2023. He submitted that while the
petitioner was imparting education in the
department, for according promotion under
CAS, he has made repeated representations
but in arbitrary manners the University had
passed
orders
dated
22.05.2023
and
09.10.2023 denying the claim of the
petitioner. The same was subject matter of
challenge in the writ petition and learned
Single Judge had taken note of the fact that
while rejecting the claim in arbitrary
manner the BHU had deliberately taken
note of only Guidelines 2008. As such
while quashing the orders dated 22.5.2023
and 09.10.2023, the matter was remitted by
learned Single Judge with a direction to
decide the claim of the petitioner with
independent application of mind.

15.
Learned
counsel
for
the
opposite party/petitioner, in this backdrop,
submitted that learned Single Judge has
rightly appreciated the facts and law and
found that the petitioner, without any fault
on his part, had been denied the rightful
claim, even though he was eligible to be
accorded promotion under the CAS. He
submitted that the UGC had formulated the
Scheme and specially Regulations, 2018
with
an
object
to
accord
financial
upgradation to a teacher, who is stagnated
in the department. Under the CAS in case
an incumbent fulfills the minimum required
eligibility, the rightful claim of a teacher
cannot be denied.

16. He vehemently argued that only
objection had been taken by the appellantrespondents for denial of rightful claim that
no selection committee for promotion of
teachers under CAS has been constituted in
the University after November, 2020. The
plea was taken that in absence of Executive
Council/Appointing
Authority
in
the
University, the promotion under CAS could
not be considered by the University. Only
on account of non-availability of Executive
Council, the process related to direct
recruitment as well as promotion of
teachers under the CAS could not be
considered. Nowhere the University had
taken any objection qua the eligibility of
the petitioner under CAS. He submitted
that on account of non-functioning of
Executive Council in the University, the
rightful claim of the petitioner could not be
denied. Learned Single Judge has also
extensively considered the Regulations,
2018 and held that the University was not
justified in denying the promotion to the
petitioner on the ground that no Executive
Council was functional in the University.
Nowhere the Act or the Ordinance creates
any such vacuum and the Vice Chancellor
of the BHU also exercises ample power
under Section 7-C (5) of the BHU Act. In
case any such emergent situation has
arisen, which requires immediate action to
be taken, the Vice Chancellor shall take
such action as he deems necessary and shall
report the same for approval at the next
meeting to the authority which, in the
4 All. Banaras Hindu University Varanasi Vs. Dr. Bhaktiputra Rohatam & Anr.
73
ordinary course, would have dealt with the
matter.

17. He, therefore, submitted that in
absence of any such timely decision by the
Vice Chancellor and on account of fault of
the Vice Chancellor of the University, the
petitioner may not be made to suffer for no
fault on his part. Moreso, the University
has not taken any specific stand, as to what
was the impediment and where is the
restriction imposed to the Vice Chancellor,
who is Executive Head of the University,
that
he
could
not
even
direct for
constitution of Screening Committee. He
submitted that the objection of the
University is totally devoid of merit.
Rightful claim had been set up under the
Regulations, 2018 and once rightful claim
had been denied on a wrong presumption,
learned Single Judge had rightly intervened
and the matter was remitted to the
University to examine the claim of the
petitioner. Learned Single Judge while
considering
the
instant
matter
had
considered each and every facet of the
Regulations, 2018 and has passed the order
with cogent reasons, which requires no
interference.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

18. Heard rival submissions and
perused the record. From the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, we find
that following issues arise for consideration
before this Court:-
 "(i)
Whether
under
the
Regulations, 2018 the petitioner-opposite
party is entitled to be accorded promotion
under the CAS from the date he became
eligible;

(ii)
Whether
the
petitioneropposite party is entitled to be accorded reemployment as teacher in the Department
as per Regulation 2.1 of the Regulations,
2018?

19. Issue No.(i)

Whether under the Regulations,
2018 the petitioner- opposite party is
entitled to be accorded promotion under
the CAS from the date he became
eligible;

The Regulations, 2018 are issued for
minimum qualifications for appointment
and other service conditions of University
and College teachers and cadres of
Librarians, Directors of Physical Education
and Sports for maintenance of standards in
higher education and revision of payscales. Under the CAS Promotion Criteria,
detailed procedure is provided under
Regulations,
2018
from
Associate
Professor
(Academic
Level
13A)
to
Professor (Academic Level 14). The stages
of promotion under Career Advancement
Scheme of incumbent and newly appointed
Asstt. Professors/ Associate Professors/
Professors is dealt under Regulation 6.4 of
the Regulations, 2018. For ready reference,
Regulation 6.4, which deals with promotion
under CAS from Association Professor
(Academic
Level
13A)
to
Professor
(Academic Level 14) is reproduced as
under:-

"C. Career Advancement Scheme
(CAS) for University teachers

I. Assistant Professor (Academic
Level 10) to Assistant Professor (Senior
Scale/Academic Level 11)

Eligibility:

i) An Assistant Professor who has
completed four years of service with a
Ph.D. degree or five years of service with a
M.Phil. / PG Degree in Professional
Courses,
such
as
LLM,
M.Tech,
M.V.Sc.and M.D., or six years of service in
case of those without a Ph.D./M.Phil./ PG
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Degree in a Professional course and
satisfies the following conditions:

ii) Attended one Orientation
course of 21 days duration on teaching
methodology;

iii) Any one of the following:
Completed
Refresher/
Research
Methodology Course/ Workshop/ Syllabus
Up-gradation
Workshop/
Training
Teaching-Learning-Evaluation,
Technology
Programmes/
Faculty
Development Programmes of at least one
week (5 days) duration, or taken one
MOOCs course (with ecertification) or
development
of
e-contents
in
fourquadrants / MOOC's course during the
assessment period; and

iv)
Published
one
research
publication in the peer-reviewed journals or
UGC-listed journals during assessment
period.

CAS Promotion Criteria :

A teacher shall be promoted if;

i) He/she gets a 'satisfactory' or
'good' grade in the annual performance
assessment
reports
of
at
least
three/four/five of the last four/five/six years
of the assessment period as the case may be
(as provided in Appendix II,Table 1), and;

ii)
The
promotion
is
recommended
by
the
screening-cum
evaluation committee.

II. Assistant Professor (Senior
Scale/Academic Level 11) to Assistant
Professor
(Selection
Grade/Academic
Level 12)

Eligibility:

i) Assistant Professors who has
completed
five
years
of
service
in
Academic Level 11/Senior Scale.

ii) A Ph.D. Degree in the subject
relevant/allied/relevant discipline.