'Redesignation Not Regular Appointment' : Supreme Court Denies CAS Relief To Research Assistants Designated As Lecturers

The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said: “...the very usage of the term/phrase “regular appointment” has to be given its proper interpretation and cannot be rendered redundant or superfluous. Here, there is a distinction between re-designation and regular appointment. Redesignation cannot be said to be a regular appointment as it is only that one post/category/cadre which is given equivalence with another existing post/category/cadre, but the basic distinction would still lie that the re-designated post/category/cadre would always be considered to be an equivalent post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor, whereas the other/mainline cadre would always be considered to comprise only of direct recruits.”

As per the CAS notified on July 22, 1988 by the Union Government, a revision in the pay scale of teachers in the universities and colleges was made with effect from January 1, 1986. Every lecturer was placed on a senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 if the person had completed eight years of service after a regular appointment.

In the instant case, respondents no. 1 to 54 were deprived of the benefit of the scheme as they were 'designated' as Assistant Professors from the position of Research Assistant.

On September 7, 1977, the University of Udaipur (later bifurcated as Rajasthan Agricultural University) designated teachers holding the post of Junior Lecturers or equivalent post as Lecturers in terms of a notification dated July 2, 1974. Thereafter, respondents were designated as Lecturers. Subsequently, they were designated as Assistant Professors and were given the same pay scale as given to Assistant Professors.

Subsequently, the Rajasthan government implemented the CAS. Consequently, the Rajasthan Agricultural University in the Board of Management meeting dated November 24, 1988 resolved to give the revised UGC pay scales to Lecturers and Research Assistants. It further resolved to designate Lecturers and Research Assistants as 'Assistant Professors'. However, it was decided that persons directly appointed as Assistant Professors would rank senior to those designated as Assistant Professors. This decision was confirmed in subsequent meetings.

The Rajasthan Agricultural University issued a notification dated May 4, 1989 stating that those selected Lecturers and Research Assistants would be designated as Assistant Professors with effect from January 1, 1973. A request was made to the Rajasthan government to approve the November 24 resolution.

In anticipation of the approval, the university notified the rules for implementing the CAS on November 22, 1990. In another Board Meeting on July 29, 1991, it was resolved that if a Research Assistant or Lecturer had been selected as Assistant Professor by the Statutory Selection Commission (SSC), then his service period shall be counted from the date of selection.

Later, the Rajasthan government on March 27, 1991 wrote to the university directing that the resolution designating Research Assistant and Lecturer as Assistant Professor be rescinded and only extend the benefit of the CAS to those Assistant Professors directly selected after regular selection by the SSC.

Resultantly, respondents were deprived of the benefits of the scheme. The respondents approached the Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan, where a single judge allowed their petition. This was affirmed by the division bench of the High Court on January 20, 2011. 

The government has now challenged it before the Supreme Court.

The Rajasthan Agricultural University has argued before the court that respondents were 'designated' and not appointed on a regular basis as Assistant Professors. It was contended that the definition of “teacher” specified in Section 2(ix) of Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 cannot be extended to Research Assistants because it is a distinct grade although the pay is the same.

As opposed to this, the respondents argued that they are covered within the definition of teacher. It was pointed out that the scheme does not state that those designated as Lecturers cannot be provided with the benefit of the scheme.

The Supreme Court, in this case, noted that in the earlier orders passed by this court, it had already been stated that “Research Assistants and Lecturers are separate and distinct cadres” and “they need not to be brought on a common seniority list only on the grounds that both enjoy the same pay scale as recommended by the University Grants Commission”.

The court stated that the single judge of the high court erred in this case in making a distinction between the earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court which was specifically with regards to the senior and the existence of a distinct cadre. It had nothing to do with the pay scales.

The court said: “We find that such a view is justified only to the extent of granting the respondents pay-scales/revised pay-scales as per the UGC recommendations. However, the CAS was distinct to a general increase or revision in pay-scales. The CAS was intended for a specific purpose i.e., to encourage the teaching staff by offering a higher pay-scale, subject to various conditions. This distinction unfortunately has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge, which, in our considered opinion, was a vital factor to be considered.”

The court added that the CAS itself envisaged that it was meant for persons who were directly recruited as Assistant Professors. It stated: “Notably, the CAS itself restricts the benefits flowing therefrom to persons who had completed eight years of service “after regular appointment” – this shows the clear-cut intent as to which of the two cadres were the subject-matter of those benefits. Thus, there was no ambiguity in the CAS per se.”

The court also pointed out that redesignated Research Assistants were never directly appointed as Lecturers and Assistant Professors. It relied on the State of Maharashtra v. Tara Ashwin Patel (2016), wherein it was held: “We have, therefore, examined the present appeals on first principles. We find from a bare reading of the two Resolutions dated 25-10-1977 and 27-2-1989 that for the purposes of career advancement the appellants had upgraded the post of Demonstrator/Tutor to the post of Lecturer and it appears that the respondents were also getting wages for the period of upgradation i.e from 1-7-1975 to 25-10-1977."

The court added: “However, for the purposes of grant of senior scale and, subsequently, for the grant of selection grade, what was required in terms of the aforesaid resolutions was actual service or regular appointment in the post of Lecturer. Thus, the respondents did not have and they cannot get the benefit of the deemed status of upgradation from 1-7-1975 to 25- 10-1977. The deemed status was apparently for the purposes of pay and other allowances and cannot be counted towards actual physical service rendered by the respondents in the post of Lecturer.'”

In this regard, the Supreme Court said: “Only by reason that the respondents were receiving the same pay-scale as the direct recruits, would not entitle them to get benefit of CAS as it was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, including completion of certain years of service viz. 8 years.”

Further, the court remarked that it was not proper for the single judge to interpret the CAS in a manner that would obliterate the distinction between Research Assistant and Lecturer.

The court added: “Needless to state, if the two cadres are given exactly similar benefits under orders of the court, then it would amount to doing something indirectly which cannot be done directly."

The court reprimanded the single judge for exercising powers which it said falls under the realm of policy formulation.

It remarked: “Whenever a scheme/policy is brought into force, ceteris paribus, the Court could not and would not import something which is not present therein and which may not be proper to be interfered with, especially when it relates to financial matters where primacy is required to be granted to the pay-master as to what scale was to be granted to the category of staff concerned. By its very nature, such exercise would fall under the realm of policy-formulation.”

However, the court directed that no recovery of the money already disbursed to the respondents would be made as it would amount to inequity.

The court concluded: “Hence, the same shall not be recovered, but all the pay and emoluments for the purposes of retiral/service conditions and for post-retiral benefits shall be reckoned notionally without granting any benefit under the CAS.”

Case details: Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through its Registrar v. Dr. Zafar Singh Solanki & Ors

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 555