RTI Requests

1. Please provide certified copies of only the relevant portions of all instructions/ Orders/ decisions of the then Chancellor (Honourable Shri M. M. Rajendran, following the implementation of 5^th UGC Pay Scale during the period 2000 to 2005, instructing the Utkal University/ Berhampur University/ Sambalpur University to prepare Cadre (or Seniority) and/or ex-Cadre list of Professors/Readers respectively for candidates directly recruited as Professors/Readers against open advertisement and for candidates promoted as Professors/Readers under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), consistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court of India (Relevant portion of judgment quoted in Annexure – I).
2. Please provide certified copies of the relevant portions of documents which instructs to fix inter se seniority of merit promotee/CAS designated Readers and Professors and directly recruited Readers and Professors of the Universities governed under Orissa Universities Act, 1987, by treating them as forming one class.
3. Only one source of recruitment of University teachers namely, Professors and Readers and even of Lecturers is contemplated in the Orissa Universities Act, 1987 and that source is by way of direct recruitment. Please provide certified copies of only the relevant portions of any amendment to this showing a separate source of recruitment by way of internal promotion.
4. If there is only one source of recruitment of University teachers but instructions have been issued as per item 2 above, then please provide relevant portions of documents which show that due to these instructions the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution ofIndiawould not get violated
5. Please provide certified copies of the relevant portions of documents which either agree or disagree to the fact that merit promoted/CAS designated Readers and Professors form a distinct class of ex-cadre or supernumerary appointees as compared to cadre employee, namely, direct recruited Readers and Professors.
6. Please provide certified copies of the relevant portions of documents which shows any occasion to fix inter se seniority of merit promotee/CAS designated Readers and Professors and directly recruited Readers and Professors by treating them as forming one class on the yardstick of continuous officiation at the Utkal, Berhampur andSambalpurUniversity.
7. Please provide certified copies of the Cadre List of the Professors/Readers of the UtkalUniversity, BerhampurUniversityand SambalpurUniversityas on 1^st January 2009 and 1^st January 2010.
8. Please provide certified copies of the List of ex-Cadre Professors/Readers in the UtkalUniversity, BerhampurUniversityand SambalpurUniversityas on 1^st January 2009 and 1^st January 2010.
9. Please provide certified copies of only the relevant portions of all instructions/ Orders of the Chancellor/ Government of Orissa to theUtkalUniversity,BerhampurUniversityandSambalpurUniversity, clearly indicating to modify the Cadre List, if list on1-01-2009is different from that on1-01-2010.
10. Please provide certified copies of only the relevant portions of all documents showing the amendments to the Orissa Universities Act, and/or Orissa Universities First Statutes, clearly mentioning to change Cadre List (by considering inter se seniority of CAS designated Professors/Readers and Directly recruited Professors/Readers) of the Professors/Readers of the Utkal University, Berhampur University and Sambalpur University.
11. Please provide certified copies of only the relevant portions of all documents indicating decisions or orders of the Government of Orissa which show that:
    1. Candidates recruited as Professors/Readers against open advertisement shall be in the same cadre as candidates promoted as Professors/Readers under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) [in violation of: the Order of the Supreme Court of India (Relevant portion of the Judgment is quoted in Annexure – Ia).]
    2. Candidates promoted as Professors/Readers under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) can be senior in cadre to candidates recruited against substantive vacancy of Professor/Reader, as the case may be, through open advertisement and hence shall write their CCR.
12. Please attach the action-report taken on this petition from the date of receipt till the date of reply on a day to day basis.

 

ANNEXURE – I

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava Vs. Vikram University & Ors., JT 1995 (4) SC 51 has observed as follows in respect of inter se seniority of designated Readers/Professors and directly recruited Readers/Professors.

 

PARA-37:

It must therefore be held on a conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the Act that only one source of recruitment of University teachers namely, Professors and Readers and even of Lecturers is contemplated and that source is by way of direct recruitment. If that is so and if under merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission which was adopted by Respondent 1 University, any departmental candidate is to be promoted, he would be so promoted dehors Section 49 and would obviously be an ex-cadre Reader or Professor as the case may be. Once that happens it would be obvious that there would be no occasion to fix the inter se seniority of directly recruited Readers and Professors who are holding cadre posts and ex-cadre merit promoted Readers and Professors who would stand outside the cadre. The first respondent by its impugned decision which was quashed by the High Court in the judgment under appeal tried to fuse the inter se seniority of both these classes of employees. And that itself amounted to treating unequals as equals. It clearly offended the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Unless Section 40 is suitably amended and a separate source of recruitment by way of internal promotion is contemplated by the Act there would remain no occasion of undertaking any exercise of fixing inter se seniority between ex- cadre employees and cadre employees. It is not in dispute between the parties that neither the Act nor any Ordinance or statutes of Respondent 1 University even remotely whisper about creation of a separate recognised source of recruitment of Professors and Readers by way of departmental promotions. It is of course true as indicated by Dr. Dhavan appearing for the intervenors that in some of the Universities even Ordinances have been issued accepting such new source of promotion of University teachers under the merit promotion scheme. But even if it is so that would make no difference as it is the parent Act, namely, University Act concerned which should contemplate creation of new source of recruitment by way of departmental promotions of University teachers. Unless that is done mere issuance of Ordinances or statutes to that effect which to that extent would conflict with the parent Act would be of no avail and would be an exercise in futility. They would also be ultra vires the Act. It must therefore be held that unless the University Act concerned under which the Universities are functioning, by suitable amendments provided for an additional source of recruitment of Readers and Professors by way of departmental promotions, mere adoption of merit promotion scheme recommended by the Commission or mere decision of the Coordination Committee or Executive Committee not to discriminate between merit promotees and direct recruit University teachers and even issuance of Ordinance or statutes to that effect would be of no avail and will not have any legal effect nor would they permit the Universities concerned to fuse the cadre employees with ex-cadre employees and to prepare a combined seniority list on that basis.

PARA- 40:

The aforesaid distinguishing features clearly indicate that merit promotee Professors and Readers form a distinct class of ex-cadre or supernumerary appointees as compared to cadre employee, namely, direct recruited Readers and Professors. They are unequals not only because of the source of their appointment but also because of the nature and character of their appointment and of the nature of the posts which they hold. They cannot be treated equally for all purposes and particularly for seniority and promotion if any. For their purposes the nature of work they do is irrelevant. The competition for seniority can only be amongst those who are in the cadre posts. Otherwise, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) would get violated. For these reasons, there would be no occasion to fix inter se seniority of merit promotee Readers and Professors and directly recruited Readers and Professors by treating them as forming one class.

Any decision rendered by the University concerned not to discriminate between them in the matter of inter se seniority would be invalid in the absence of any statutory creation of a distinct source of recruitment by promotion by way of amending the parent Act. As the first respondent is governed by the Act which does not contemplate any statutory source of recruitment by way of promotion, whatever sentiments might have been expressed by the Executive Committee of the University for not distinguishing between directly recruited Professors and Readers on the one hand and promotee Readers and Professors on the other hand in the matter of seniority, “have no legal efficacy. On the contrary, treating them on a par for seniority and promotion is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) as we have seen above. It must therefore be held that the High Court was justified in taking the view that the action of the first respondent University in fixing inter se seniority of directly recruited Professors and Readers and merit promoted Readers and Professors on the yardstick of continuous officiation was illegal and unconstitutional.