In a significant ruling on the service rights of employees transitioning from a government-aided institute to a university, the Allahabad हाईकोर्ट has held that a Physical Training Instructor of the Harcourt Butler Technical University, appointed before its incorporation, must be treated as academic staff for the purpose of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Justice J.J. Munir, while allowing the writ petition filed by Dr. Vikas Yadav, ruled that the pre-existing bylaws of the erstwhile institute, which classified the post as ‘academic’, would prevail over the narrower definition of ‘teacher’ in the new University Act, by virtue of a specific savings clause protecting the service conditions of old employees.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dr. Vikas Yadav, was appointed as a Physical Training Instructor at the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur (the Institute) on January 18, 2007, following an advertisement dated January 27, 2006. The Institute, then governed by a registered society, was later incorporated as the Harcourt Butler Technical University (the University) under the Uttar Pradesh Harcourt Butler Technical University Act, 2016.
The petitioner initially filed Writ-A No. 14778 of 2019, claiming the status and pay scale of a teaching staff member as per UGC/AICTE norms from the time of his appointment. While this petition was pending, the University initiated the process for granting promotions under the CAS to its teaching staff. However, a subsequent order by the Vice Chancellor on April 19, 2022, excluded the petitioner and his department from the list of candidates to be interviewed for CAS benefits. Aggrieved by this exclusion, the petitioner filed the present petition, Writ-A No. 6849 of 2022, challenging the order and seeking consideration for promotion under the CAS.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, argued that the post of Physical Training Instructor was re-classified as an ‘academic’ post by an amendment to the Institute’s bylaws on November 27, 1990. He submitted that Section 46(1) of the 2016 Act ensures that until the University frames its First Ordinances, the bylaws of the predecessor Institute remain in force.
Furthermore, he emphasized Section 3(5) of the Act, which protects the service terms and conditions of all employees of the former Institute who transitioned to the University, unless they opted for new terms. The petitioner contended that since he was classified as academic staff under the prevailing bylaws at the time of the University’s incorporation, he is entitled to be treated as a teacher and considered for all associated benefits, including CAS. The petitioner also detailed his duties, which he argued were akin to teaching, including instructing students on rules of games and awarding ‘General Proficiency’ marks that form part of the B.Tech degree evaluation.
Arguments of the Respondents
Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, appearing for the State, and Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, for the University, countered the petitioner’s claims. They argued that the petitioner was appointed to a non-teaching post as specified in the 2006 advertisement and had accepted the non-teaching pay scale without protest, thereby estopping him from claiming teaching status now.
The respondents contended that the 1990 bylaw amendment was invalid as it lacked the mandatory prior approval of the State Government. They pointed out that the State Government has always classified the post as non-teaching and had, in fact, rejected a proposal in 2015 to re-designate the post as Assistant Director (Physical Education). They concluded that as a non-teaching employee, the petitioner was ineligible for promotion under the CAS, which is reserved exclusively for teachers.
Court’s Analysis
The Court, after careful consideration, first addressed the conflict between the recruitment advertisement and the governing rules. Citing the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others, Justice Munir affirmed the established legal principle: “in case of an inconsistency between an advertisement and the recruitment rules, the rules prevail.” The court held this principle would equally apply to a conflict regarding the nature of a post.
The central issue turned on the validity and effect of the 1990 bylaw amendment. The Court noted that under this amendment, the post of Physical Training Instructor was moved from the ‘Technical’ to the ‘Academic’ category. The respondents’ argument that the amendment was ineffective due to non-registration with the Registrar of Societies was rejected. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School and another v. Mohinder Kaur (Smt) and another, which held that registration of an amendment to the rules and regulations of a society is not a pre-condition for it to come into effect. The Court concluded, “the bylaws dated 27.11.1990, notwithstanding non-registration…would still have legal force and bind parties.”
The judgment then analyzed the interplay between these valid bylaws and the Act of 2016. The Court found that Section 3(5) of the Act contained a non-obstante clause that explicitly protected the service conditions of employees transitioning from the Institute. This provision, the Court held, insulates such employees from any contrary provision in the 2016 Act.
Consequently, the restrictive definition of “Teacher” in Section 2(20) of the Act (as Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor) had to be harmoniously read with the savings clause. The Court determined that for the petitioner, the specific protection under Section 3(5) and his status under the 1990 bylaws would override the general definition. It stated, “The petitioner, therefore, has to be regarded a member of the academic staff and a fortiori a teacher.”
The Court also drew upon the principles laid down in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and another, where the Supreme Court had recognized a Physical Director as a teacher based on the nature of their duties, which included imparting instruction. The Court found the petitioner’s duties, such as awarding marks for general proficiency which were part of the B.Tech course, to be academic in nature.
However, the Court took note of the petitioner’s long acquiescence in accepting a non-teaching salary. It deemed it inequitable to grant him financial arrears for past services. The Court clarified that while his status must be recognized for future benefits like CAS, he could not claim past monetary entitlements.
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed Writ-A No. 6849 of 2022 and quashed the Vice Chancellor’s order dated April 19, 2022, insofar as it excluded the petitioner from CAS interviews. A mandamus was issued directing the State Government and the University to treat Dr. Vikas Yadav as a member of the academic staff and extend him the benefit of the CAS after re-classifying his post accordingly. The Court explicitly stated that this re-classification would not entitle the petitioner to any higher emoluments or financial benefits for his past services. The connected Writ-A No. 14778 of 2019 was consequently consigned to records.
