Dr Aftab Ahmad Khan
The Scenario at work with the department of Higher Education conveys exciting developments with reference to its undertakings. The functioning and exercise of power by the men at the helm of affairs always remain under surveillance and scrutiny of public opinion through electronic/ printed media. Social networking is another watchdog that now-a-days play crucial role in policy formation and public analysis. More recently the undertakings of the department of Higher Education came under Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) assessment. CAT is an institution, created outside the judicial system of the country, designated to provide assessment/interpretation to the service matters with quasi judicial competence.
The Judgment passed by CAT set aside the appointment /promotion of 61 Associate Professors to the Posts of College Principals in various Degree Colleges. The orders for the regularization of Services of College Principals to that effect were issued vide Govt. order No. 684-HE of 2017 Dt. 12-12-2017.
The selection cum appointment procedures to the post of College Principals amongst Associate Professors is subjected to standard UGC regulations/ norms. It work at interview methodology on account of academic eligibility to the Professors grade against the post of Principal. Hence, post of College Principal is a selection post filled through a procedure recognized as per national standards and adopted through State legislations. Therefore, by virtue of its nature post is not ordained among Administrative officers discharging administrative functions under the absolute cover of Civil Services Rules.
It is an admitted fact that Department rights from its inception have made a marked distinction between administrative Officers and academic Officers with watertight division and specialization of functions signifying the nature of job performances. Of course, one can visualize with great transparency that Department sails with dual line-ups i. e Administrative positions and academic posts. The category of Administrative posts present a smooth hierarchy ranking from Under Secretary to Principal/Secretary reinforced by consultative and supportive staff while as Teaching faculty, on the other hand, in all colleges is a cog of Academic Posts ranking from Lecturer to Professor in variety of academic subjects. Among this scenario the post of College Principal is made of an academic officer responsible for academic administration of the College. It is pertinent to mention that the Director Colleges in the whole educational scenario and academic activity is a post of an academician among bureaucrats and political circles for academic opinion.
The Judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal’ regarding the appointment /Promotion of College Principals, adversely regards the post of College Principal an Administrative Post likely to be filled under the appropriate provisions of Civil Service Rules, Sub Rule 2 of Rule 2, (Referring Vacancies and holding of meetings of Departmental Promotion Committee) (Rules of 2005). The verdict draws its inspirations from of Hon’ble Apex Court in S.P Gupta V/s State of J&K AIR 2000 SC 2386 and Hon’ble High Court in LPA (SW) No. 159/2016 (Supra) as well as recasts Paragraph No. 7 of Government Order 743 – GAD of 2007 dated 28.6.2007..
CAT judgment seems to be an effort to provide solitary relief to the litigants only that too without considering the far-reaching consequences that the judgment is unfolding. Decree solely relies upon the inferences put forth by Defence Council of ten litigants, (a group of non selectees by PSC in the list of 61 appointed principals), who were desirous to seek regularization of their services on the posts of Principal from the date they were officiating as College Principals. The defence Councils work out has successfully superseded UGC regulation which department has comprehensively adopted officially since 2004. CATs wisdom fully overlooks UGC standard regulations and completely regards the post of College Principal a full-fledged administrative post for routine promotion through seniority syndrome only under Civil Service Rules;.
* It foresees and restores Departmental Promotion Committee (abolished in the year 2008 by virtue of an amendment and notified vide SRO 423 of 2008 dated. 23-08-2008) with a potent role in the appointment/ promotion of teaching faculty under the provisions of Civil Service Rules only and more specifically as and when vacancy falls vacant.
* It undermines the role of Public Service Commission in the selection process of candidates put in practice since 2004 and notified vide SRO 115 of 2004 dated 16-04-2004.
* The distinctive feature of the judgment reinvents ‘post fulfilment mechanism’ of Principals operative before 2005. It totally abolished the adopted selection format based on standard selection procedures of UGC.
* It altogether overlooks to the post of Principal as “Selection Post” likely to be filled on account of competence and merit among teaching faculty through selection process and interview among 1/5 with standard Procedure as prescribed by UGC. It simply concocts a hassle free system of routine promotions on account of seniority syndrome.
CAT Judgment: Implications
The judgment simply provides relief to all the litigants and not only causes utter discomfort among all selected candidates but also opens the gates to a dilemma having far-reaching consequences like;
* Department of Higher Education has to undertake point black amendment to UGC Regulations and to a policy document which it inherited from New Education Policy (NPE – 1986). It has to bring all academic faculty under the fold of Civil Service Rules in a arbitrary manner that too at the negation of prevalent UGC Rules, Regulation & Norms. It by all standards has to say good bye to UGC 100% funding which it receives in the shape of financial assistance/ salary component after every five years. All in all, CAT acquaints department to withdraw UGC Pay structures offered to faculty and reinforce salary structures for faculty as prescribed by the State pay structures and grades under Civil Service Rules.
* CAT judgment utterly adheres to non cognizance of the fact that any selection process to the posts referred in 2011 and 2016 should have been dealt according to the rules operating at the time of vacancy falling vacant and also specifically to the posts referred in 2012 be subjected to selection in terms of provisions contained in SRO 423 of 2008 dated 23.12.2008 and as per Division Bench of Hon’ble Court direction. It altogether overlooks it with utmost surprise.
The CAT verdict by the nature of the judgment invalidates and sets aside all promotions/ appointments to the post of Principals since 2005 through PSC selection with unconditional recovery of excess salary from all promoted/appointed principals because if it invalidates all selection through PSC after 2005;
* By implication the Department is also obliged to issue necessary advisory for the change of status of remaining forty Principals selected in 2016 and have attained superannuation since 2016 among the selected 61 principals;
* It prompts Principal Secretary / Commissioner Higher education to demote 61 selected Principals among whom almost 20 presently are acting as Principals since 2016;
* The demotion order of this nature is bound to demand recovery of excess salary from all promoted staff;
* The echoing of change of status (i.e From Principal to Associate Professor) with huge monetary recoveries may go up to the principals lot selected/ appointed since 2004 through PSC and among whom a good number of principals have acted as “Director Colleges” and till date some have also passed away.
* In such a situation department is bound to enter into a situation of litigations from all aggrieved faculty with a diverse gravity and perplexity.
* Again, the overall state of affairs may deprive superannuating Principals appointed / promoted to the post of Principals from settling their pension cases for long time yet to come.
(The author is former Principal)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel