1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4179/2013
Dr. Narendra Kumar Jain & Ors.
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order

::

24th March, 2015

HONBLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Dr.Nupur Bhati & Mr.Kailash Jangid, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.B.D.Sharma, counsel for the respondent-State
Mr.G.R.Punia, Sr.Counsel assisted by
Mr.Rajendra Prasad, counsel for the respondent-University.
Mr.Girish Joshi, counsel for the respondent-UGC.
Reportable

<><><><><>
All the petitioners are serving in the Maharana Pratap
University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur on the post of
Associate Professor in various subjects. The relief sought by the
petitioners is for promotion to the post of Professor under the
Career Advancement Scheme by taking into consideration the
aggregate of marks obtain in Expert Assessment and not just the
interview marks alone i.e. they should be promoted if they are,
otherwise, eligible and have secured more than 50% marks in the
Expert Assessment carrying 100 marks, which includes interview
marks.
The petitioners who are serving on the post of Associate
Professors are stated to be entitled to the next promotion as per
the prevailing UGC/ICAR Regulations and the Rules for promotion

to the post of Professor in accordance with Career Advancement

Scheme (hereinafter referred to as, the CAS). The University
Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as, the UGC) framed
its Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities & Colleges and
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education2010, (hereinafter referred to as, the Regulations, 2010), which
was published in the Gazette of India. In these Regulations, the
UGC in Regulation 6.4.0 stated the stages of promotion of
incumbent and newly appointed Assistant Professors/ Associate
Professors/ Professors under CAS. The Regulation 6.4.8 is
relevant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Professor. As
per the said Regulation, Associate Professor completing three
years of service in Stage-4 and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the
relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated
as Professor and be placed in the next higher Grade (Stage-5),
subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API
based PBAS methodology provided in Table I-III of Appendix IV
stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment by a duly
constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct
recruitment of Professor. Provided that, no teacher, other than
those with a Ph.D., shall be promoted or appointed as Professor.
As per Regulation 6.3.2, the candidates who do not secure 50%
marks

in

the

Expert

Assessment

will

have

to

undergo

re-assessment after one year. The respondents took a decision to

adopt the Regulations, 2010 for the purpose of CAS and also to

finalize and approve the guidance score card. While adopting the
Regulations, 2010, certain modifications were made by the State
Government in which Clause-4 said that Career Advancement
Scheme on or after 31.12.2008 shall be strictly as per the revised
Regulation, 2010 as stated in para 1.3. of the UGC Regulations
dated 30.6.2010. The petitioners were facing stagnation and
therefore, made representations through their association to the
University for conducting a process for promotion under the CAS
as no promotion had taken place since 2001 when 42 promotions
were given to the teaching staff as Professors. Out of which, 60%
Professors had already retired by the end of 2010. It was also
stated in the representation that as per the ICAR and UGC
Guidelines, process for promotion should be conducted every year
on regular basis. In pursuance of such representations, the
University recommended for conducting of personal promotion of
teachers under the CAS vide letter dated 4.5.2011.
Accordingly, applications were invited on 14.10.2011 for
promotion from the post of Associate Professor to the post of
Professor under the CAS. As per the procedure laid down in
Regulation, 2010, the petitioners being fully eligible applied against
the same. As per the Regulation, 2010, they filled their appraisal
forms. Thereafter, the respondents issued call letters to the
petitioners to appear for interview for personal promotion under
CAS. They duly appeared before the Selection Committee but
were shocked to see the result declared on 11.1.2013, whereby,
they were not given promotion on the post of Professor under the

ongoing process on the ground that they had not secured 50%
marks in interview, whereas, all the petitioners have got above
50% marks out of 100 marks in the score card and less than 10
marks in the interview carrying 20 marks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for
promotion along with other candidates on the post of Professor
after taking into consideration the aggregate of the marks under
the various heads given under the Expert Assessment instead of
considering the interview marks alone, argued that the norms of
promotion to the post of Professor were well defined in the
Regulations of the UGC, which have been admitted by the
University and the State Government for all purposes including
career

advancement

but

the

connotation

drawn

by

the

respondents that all Assistants Professors are required to obtain

50% marks in the interview alone for promotion is contrary to the
basic Regulation, 2010 and its Appendix-III.
It was further contended that various writ petitions were filed
in the High Court at Rajasthan challenging the vires of the
University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for
the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in
Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment)
Regulations, 2009 as the UGC has put a rider that only those
candidates who have been awarded Ph.D. degree in compliance
of the University Grants Commission shall be exempted from the
requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for
recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent

cadres in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions. The learned Division

Bench of the High Court while dismissing the petitions uphold the
vires of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications
required for the appointment and Career Advancement of
Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd
Amendment) Regulations, 2009 and also held that the University
could not pass resolutions granting exemptions in contravention of
the Regulations framed by it and that once the UGC has framed
regulations, they are binding upon it and no departure can be
made from them.
Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.2 & 3,
Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology and its
Registrar, stating that as per Regulation 6.3.2, 6.3.7 and 6.3.11 of
the Regulations, 2010, it is necessary to obtain minimum marks as
per Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS proforma) and
also in the expert assessment before the Selection Committee. An
interview is based on the expert assessment and that a candidate
must secure more than 50% marks on the basis of score card out
of 80 marks and also obtain more than 50% marks out of the score
card of 20 marks in the interview. It was further submitted that if
the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted,
then only Academic Performance Indicators marks is required to
be considered and if a candidate gets more than 50% marks in
API scores, he need not to appear in the interview, which is not
logical. Reliance is placed on the Regulation 6.3.2 of the
Regulations, 2010 on minimum qualifications, which reads thus:-

6.3.2 Candidates who do not fulfill the minimum

score requirement under the API Scoring System
proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II (a and
b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50%
in the expert assessment of the selection process will
have to be re-assessed only after a minimum period
of one year. The date of promotion shall be the date
on which he/she has successfully got re-assessed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-University has further
relied on the Regulations 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.6 of the Regulations,
2010 to contend that the petitioners must obtain more than 50%
marks in the interview i.e. at least 10 marks out of 20 marks in the
interview alone. Further, as per Annexure-R/1, a candidate must
obtain 40 out of 80 in PBAS and 10 out of 20 in interview to qualify
and that as per the Regulation 6.0.2, the University can adopt their
own template proforma and can also devise their own selfassessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers.
Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length and the
UGC Regulations and the various resolutions were also gone into.
There is no dispute with the marks obtained by the
petitioners in the API. All the petitioners have got more than 50%
marks. The only dispute is with respect to the marks obtained in
the Expert Assessment. Thus, the question that requires to be
decided is as to whether the criteria of Expert Assessment
comprises of interview alone or other heads as well?
In order to understand the controversy, we need to refer to
the Regulation 6.4.8 and 6.3.2 of the Regulations, 2010, which
read:6.4.8. Associate Professor completing three years of
service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the
relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and

designated as Professor and be placed in the next

higher Grade (stage-5), subject to (a) satisfying the
required credit points as per API based PBAS
methodology provided in Table I-III of Appendix IV
stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment
by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested
for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that no
teacher, other than those with a Ph.D., shall be
promoted or appointed as Professor.
6.3.2 Candidates who do not fulfill the minimum score
requirement under the API Scoring System proposed in
the Regulations as per Tables II (a and b) of Appendix III
or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert
assessment of the selection process will have to be reassessed only after a minimum period of one year. The
date of promotion shall be the date on which he/she has
successfully got re-assessed.
As per Appendix III Table II(A), the relevant portion of the
Minimum Academic Performance Indicators as provided in
Appendix-III Table-I to be applied for the Promotion of Teachers
under CAS in University Departments, and Weightages for Expert
Assessment, from the post of Assistant Professor (Stage 4) to
Professor/equivalent cadres (Stage 5), is as under:-

APPENDIX-III TABLE-II(A)

Teaching-learning,
Evaluation
Related
Activities (category I)
II Co-curricular, Extension
and Profession related
activities (Category II)
III Minimum total average
annual Score under
Categories I and II*
I
Research & Academic
V Contribution (Category
III)
Expert
Assessment
System

Associate Professor
(Stage 4) to
Professor/equivalent
cadres (Stage 5)
75/year

15/year

100/years

40/year
(120/assessment
period)
Selection
Committee

8
V

Percentage Distribution
of Weightage Points in
the Expert Assessment
(Total weightage=100
minimum required for
promotion is 50)

50%-Contribution to
Research.
30%-Assessment of
domain knowledge
&
teaching practices.
20%-Interview
performance

The Table of UGC Regulations Appendix as mentioned

above provides for percentage distribution of weightage points in
the Expert Assessment (Total weightage = 100). Minimum
required for promotion is 50 in its column No.V, it also provides
that since the appointments were from stage 3 to 4 and stage 4 to
stage 5 there had to be 80% marks for contribution to Research;
Assessment of Domain Knowledge; and Teaching Practices, with
20% marks for interview performance.
The criteria as per the Guidance for Assessment/Direct
Recruitment as Professor/ Equivalent for the post of Professor or
its equivalent as provided by the said Regulation is:Allotment of Marks
1. Qualifications
2. Experience
3. Academic awards
4. Other University duties
5. Other Teaching/Research/
Extension activities
6. Publications
7. Outstanding achievements
8. Service in remote areas
9. Interview

25 Marks
13 Marks
10 Marks
05 Marks
05 Marks
15 Marks
02 Marks
05 Marks
20 Marks

Whereas, the minimum qualifying marks for appointment

mentioned in the same is:
Minimum qualifying marks for appointment: The
minimum marks qualifying for appointment will be as under:a) UR : 50 Marks
b) SC/ST: 45 Marks
From the above, it is evident that there is no mention of the

requirement of 50% marks in the interview. It is further evident that

there are three heads under the Expert Assessments, namely, (i)
contribution to research; (ii) assessment of domain knowledge and
teaching practices; and (iii) interview performance.
Thereafter, the result of the petitioner No.1 was declared as
under:Name
Qualifi- Experi- Acade- Other Other
Publi- Outstanof
cation ence
mic
Unir.
Teaching/ cation dIng
Candidate
Awards Duties Research/
AchieveExtension
ment
Activities

Maximum 25
marksN.K.Jain 21.16

Service
in
remote
area

13

10

05

05

15

02

05

13.0

3.0

3.0

15.
0

2.0

SubInterTotal
view
(PBAS
)

80

20

57.1 08.00
6

A perusal of the above shows that the petitioner No.1 has

57.16 marks out of 80 marks and 8.00 out of 20 marks in the
interview. Similarly, other petitioners have also got more than 50%
in the aggregate of various heads as mentioned above but less
than 10 marks in the interview. However, if the aggregate of 100
marks is taken, all the petitioners got more than 50% marks.
Admittedly, all the petitioners have got more than 50%
marks in the API Score system. It is also admitted that the
candidates require 50% marks under the Expert Assessment
system. Question is whether Expert Assessment means interview
alone.
As per the Appendix-III Table II(A), reproduced above, the
distribution of weightage marks in the Expert Assessment for
promotion from the post of Associate Professor (Stage 4) to
Professor/equivalent

cadres

(Stage

5)

under

the

Expert

Grand
Total

100
-

10

Assessment system for the sake of repetition is reproduced as

under:-

Expert
Assessment
System
Percentage Distribution
of Weightage Points in
the Expert Assessment
(Total weightage=100
minimum required for
promotion is 50)

Selection
Committee
50%-Contribution to
Research.
30%-Assessment of
domain knowledge
& teaching practices.
20%-Interview
performance

From the above Table, it is evident that 50% marks are

towards contribution to research, 30% towards assessment of
domain knowledge and teaching practices and 20% towards
interview performance for the purpose of Expert Assessment.
None of the regulations framed by the UGC and as adopted by the
University including the Regulations 6.3.0, 6.0.1, 6.0.7, 6.0.3, 6.3.2
or 6.4.8 provide for interview to be the only criteria under the
heading of Expert Assessment System.
For the sake of simplicity, the only conclusion that can be
drawn from the above is:
Expert Assessment = Contribution to research
Assessment of domain

(50 marks)
(40 marks)

knowledge & teaching practices.

Interview performance

(20 marks)

Thus. Expert Assessment does not mean interview alone.

Research, publication of books are subject to assessment by
Selection Committee, which is as stated by the UGC in its reply as
discussed in the later part of the judgment. Hence, in the facts of
the present case, Expert Assessment does not mean interview

11

alone.
The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents
that from the Annexure-R/1, which is proforma for marks for
Assessment of Associate Professor for promotion as Professor
under CAS, the minimum eligibility marks in PBAS was 40 out of
80 and 10 out of 20 in interview alone and were required to be
obtained separately for promotion to the post of Professor, has no
merit. The same appears to have been worked out on totally
wrong interpretation of the Regulations, 2010, reproduced above,
which is proved from the following:(i)

Regulation 6.3.2 talks of 50% marks in the Expert

assessment. It does not talk about interview alone.

(ii)

Regulation 6.0.1 of the Appendix III Table II (B) relates to

promotion to the post of Professor which also talks of Expert
Assessment System and it again includes three heads i.e.
contribution to research; assessment of domain knowledge
and teaching practices; and interview performance. It does
not mention interview alone.

(iii)

The argument that Universities may adopt their own

template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment
cum performance appraisal forms for teachers, too, does not
help. As per the Regulation 6.0.2 the Universities may
adopt the template proforma or may devise their own selfassessment cum performance appraisal forms for
teachers in strict adherence to the API criteria based
PBAS prescribed in these Regulations. Under no

12

circumstances, it states that the marks towards contribution

to research and assessment of domain knowledge &
teaching practice can be separated from the interview marks
under the head of Expert Assessment.
(iv)

No doubt, as per the proforma of marks for assessment of

Associate Professor for promotion as Professor in CAS
placed on record as Annexure-R/1 shows that minimum
eligibility required is 50% marks in PBAS (40/80) as well as
interview (10/20) separately, but there is no such mention of
the same in the proforma of marks-sheet for Assessment/
Direct Recruitment of Professor, supplied to the petitioner
through the RTI. Thus, the column was added subsequently
by the University while making the assessment, which is not
in strict adherence to the API criteria based PBAS
prescribed in these Regulations and nor adopted by the
University by any resolution. The same is an outcome of
wrong and erroneous interpretation.

(v)

Even from the reply of the UGC, it is evident that the

assessment of the research publications including books is
to be done by three eminent experts and only, in case, the
recommendation is positive by three experts that a
candidate is entitled for interview, and the experts in the
interview are different from those who had assessed and
evaluated the research publications. Although the same
talks of the promotion under CAS from Reader to Professor
but there is no distinction provided in the procedure for

13

evaluating a candidate for Expert Assessment qua the

promotion from Associate Professor to Professor. As per the
Regulations of the UGC, the criteria and terms to be
adhered are as under:

That self-appraisal report for the period including five

years before the date of eligibility be submitted;
That minimum of five research publications out of which
two could be the books be submitted for evaluation/
assessment before the interviews;
That the assessment of the research publications,
including books, be done by three eminent experts in
the subject which shall be different than those called for
interview to be conducted later on;
That all the recommendations be positive from the three
experts. In case, the recommendation of one out of the
three is negative, the research publications be sent to
the fourth expert for evaluation and assessment in all,
there has to be a minimum of three positive
recommendations out of the total of four experts, in
case the fourth expert has participated in the exercise
due to one negative report out of the initially three
experts involved in evaluation;
That there be a separate column in the evaluation
report of the expert saying whether the research
publications and books are recommended or not
recommended;
That the University be permitted to hold the interview for
promotion under CAS only for those candidates who
have cleared by obtaining minimum of three positive
recommendations from the experts on their research
publications/books.
That then after the interview be conducted inviting three
experts of the concerned subject making sure that
these experts be different than those who had assessed
and evaluated the research publications.
From the reply of the UGC as above, it is evident that

Expert Committee also evaluates and assesses the research

publications and the books published by the candidates.
Thus, while framing the said Regulations, the UGC did not
contemplate separating the said Expert Assessment of the
research publications and the books from the Expert

14

Assessment in the interview.

Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the
respondent-University on the various judgments rendered by the
Apex Court. In the case of Irshan Rashid Pathan & 10 Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2012(5) WLC (Raj.) 135, the
Apex Court held that qualifications higher than prescribed under
Rules can be advertised but lower than that cannot be. Reliance
was also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Manjeet Singh Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.
(1990) 2 SCC 367, to state that even in the absence of prescribed
minimum qualifying marks, 40% marks in interview were held
reasonable. It is further contended that Examining/Expert Body is
competent to prescribe cut off marks on the basis of post in
question as per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras Vs.
V.Ramalingam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 523. Further, the
minimum qualifying marks for written and oral examination can be
fixed in order to get best available talent and the interview is the
best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for particular
position as per the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the
case of K.H.Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors., reported in
(2006) 6 SCC 395. Further, as per the judgment rendered by
Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court NonGazetted Ministerial Staff Association Vs. Registrar General,
R.H.C., reported in 2010(2) WLC (Raj.) 746, employer is the best
judge to prescribe eligibility criteria.

15

There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in

the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the
respondents. However, the same does not help the respondents
in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case,
the University has adopted the Regulations in its letter and spirit
but fell in error while applying Regulation 6.3.2 of the Regulations,
2010. As per the said Regulation, candidates who do not fulfill the
minimum score requirement under the API Scoring system
provided in the Regulations as per Table-II (A&B) of Appendix-III
or who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the
selection process will have to be re-assessed only after a
minimum period of one year, which shows that for the promotion to
the post of Professor, minimum requirement is 50 marks out of 100
marks in the Expert Assessment System and it is nowhere
prescribed under the Regulations, 2010 that for the promotion of
Teachers under CAS, a candidate is required to obtain 50% marks
in the interview alone. Further, Table-II (A & B) of the Appendix-III
of the Regulations, 2010 specifically prescribes the percentage
distribution of weightage point in the expert's assessment (total
weightage = 100. Minimum required for promotion is 50). In the
aforesaid table, against column-V and row 4 & 5, it is very
specifically stated that since the appointments were from Stage-3
to 4 and Stage-4 to 5, there had to be 80% marks for contribution
for research and assessment of domain knowledge & teaching
practices with 20% marks for interview performance. Further, a
bare perusal of the Guidance for Assessment/Director Recruitment

16

as Professor/ Equivalent again prescribes minimum qualifying

marks for appointment, and for the unreserved category 50 marks
are required for qualifying for appointment. Thus, the UGC
regulations, nowhere prescribe to obtain 50% marks in the
interview alone and nor such resolution was passed by the
University. Thus, the interview marks alone are being considered
under the Expert Assessment under a mistaken belief and misinterpretation of the Regulations.
It is well settled proposition of law that a plain meaning must
be attributed to the statute. Nothing should be added or deleted. It
should be read as it is. The Apex Court in the case of Illachi Devi
(dead) by Lrs & Ors. Vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India
& Ors., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 413, while relying on the various
judgments of the Apex Court observed as under:42. In Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. v. State of
T.N. and Ors., [2002]3 scc 533, it was held:
"The rival pleas regarding rewriting of statute and
casus omissus need careful consideration. It is wellsettled principle in law that the court cannot read
anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature.
The language employed in a statute is the
determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and
primary rule of construction is that the intention of the
legislation must be found in the words used by the
legislature itself. The question is not what may be
supposed and has been intended but what has been
said. "Statutes should be construed, not as theorems
of Euclid", Judge Learned Hand said, "but words must
be construed with some imagination of the purposes
which lie behind them". (Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v.
Yensavage, (218 FR 547) The view was reiterated in
Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem
Vasco De Gama, AIR (1990) SC 981.
43. This Court again in Harbhajan Singh v.Press Council
of India and Ors., [2002] 3 SCC 722 stated the law thus:

17

"Clearly, the language of Sub-section (7) of Section 6

abovesaid, is plain and simple. There are two
manners of reading the provision. Read positively, it
confers a right on a retiring member to seek
renomination. Read in a negative manner, the
provision speaks of a retiring member not being
eligible for renomination for more than one term. The
spell of ineligibility is cast on "renomination" of a
member who is "retiring". The event determinative of
eligibility or ineligibility is "renomination", and the
person, by reference to whom it is to be read, is "a
retiring member". "Retiring member" is to be read in
contradistinction with a member/person retired
sometime in the past, and so, would be called a
retired or former member. "Re" means again, and is
freely used as a prefix. It gives colour of "again" to the
verb with which it is placed. "Renomination" is an act
or process of being nominated again. Any person who
had held office of member sometime in the past, if
being nominated now, cannot be described as being
"again nominated". It is only a member just retiring
who can be called ''being again nominated" or ''renominated". No other meaning can be assigned
except by doing violence to the language employed.
The legislature does not waste its words. Ordinary,
grammatical and full meaning is to be assigned to the
words used while interpreting a provision to honour
the rule - the legislature chooses appropriate words to
express what it intends, and therefore, must be
attributed with such intention as is conveyed by the
words employed so long as this does not result in
absurdity or anomaly or unless material - intrinsic or
external - is available to permit a departure from the
rule. Cross in Statutory Interpretation (3rd Edn., 1995)
states :
"The governing idea here is that if a statutory provision
is intelligible in the context of ordinary language, it
ought, without more, to be interpreted in accordance
with the meaning an ordinary speaker of the language
would ascribe to it as its obvious meaning, unless
there is sufficient reason for a different
interpretation. .... Thus, an 'ordinary meaning' or
'grammatical meaning' does not imply that the Judge
attributes a meaning to the words of a statute
independently of their context or of the purpose of the
statute, but rather that he adopts a meaning which is
appropriate in relation to the immediately obvious and
unresearched context and purpose in and for which
they are used. By enabling citizens (and their
advisers) to rely on ordinary meanings, unless notice

18

is given to the contrary, the legislature contributes to

legal certainty and predictability for citizens and to
greater transparency in its own decisions, both of
which are important values in a democratic society."
44. Yet again in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of
Customs, Bombay, it is stated:
"No words or expressions used in any statute can be
said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of
interpretation one should not concentrate too much on
one word and pay too little attention to other words.
No provision in the statute and no word in any section
can be construed in isolation. Every provision and
every word must be looked at generally and in the
context in which it is used. It is said that every statute
is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle
of interpreting any word while considering a statute is
to gather the mens or sentential legis of the
legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no
obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention
of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no
scope for the court to take upon itself the task of
amending or altering the statutory provisions."
45. It is equally well settled that when the Legislature has
employed a plain and unambiguous language, the Court
is not concerned with the consequences arising
therefrom. Recourse to interpretation of statutes may be
resorted only when the meaning of the statute is obscure.
The Court is not concerned with the reason as to why the
Legislature thought it fit to lay emphasis on one category
of suitors than the others. A statute must be read in its
entirety for the purpose of finding out the purport and
object thereof. The Court, in the event of its coming to the
conclusion that a literal meaning is possible to be
rendered, would not embark upon the exercise of judicial
interpretation thereof and nothing is to be added or taken
from a statute unless it is held that the same would lead to
an absurdity or manifest injustice. It is well-established
that a disabling legislation must be characterized by
clarity and precision. In the present instance, the
prohibitions laid down by Sections 223 and 236 of the Act
are categorical and comprehensive, and leave no scope
for creative interpretation.
Similarly, in the case of Dayal Singh & Ors., Vs. Union of
India & Ors, reported in 2003(2) SCC 593, the Apex Court held:36. The appellants, thus, cannot invoke a right by
reading the same into a statute although admittedly

19

there exists none.

37. It is well-settled principle of law that the court
cannot read anything into the statutory provision
which is plain and unambiguous. The court has to find
out legislative intent only from the language employed
in the statutes. Surmises and conjectures cannot be
restricted to for interpretation of statutes. [See Union
of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem
Vasco De Gama: (1990)1SCC277 ].
38. This Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana
Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 2003 SC 511 , has
observed:"Scope of the legislation on the intention of the
legislature cannot be enlarged when the language
of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other
words statutory enactments must ordinarily be
construed according to its plain meaning and no
words shall be added altered or modified unless it
is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision
from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable,
unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of
the statute."
Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Regulation
is clear. It refers to Expert Assessment and not to interview. The
Expert Assessment includes three heads and not interview alone.
The University could not have come to the conclusion that the
Expert Assessment meant interview alone, especially when the
Expert Assessment was required for evaluating the books and for
research publications. The Golden Rule of Interpretation for statute
is that it should be given its natural meaning and literal meaning.
The argument of the respondents that there is a purpose
behind fixing qualifying marks in viva/interview as laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquddin & Ors.,
reported in 1987 (suppl.) SCC 401, dealt with the cases pertaining
to fresh appointment/direct recruitment, whereas, the case in hand

20

relates to promotion under the CAS, which has been formulated to

give career progression to the employee in order to allow the
teachers to move into the higher grade and is, in fact, a promotion
in addition to the sanctioned post of Professors, which are
normally filled through direct recruitment through All India
advertisement. On the other hand, the promotions under CAS are
made from the posts of Associate Professor to that of Professor
after 8 years of service as Associate Professor. Hence, there does
not appear to be stress on the interview alone. The requirement of
50% marks is in the Expert Assessment. Since the assessment of
the research publications including books is done by three eminent
experts in the subject and the said Experts are different from the
ones called for the interview, the question of excluding the
assessment of research publication and books while counting the
marks towards Expert Assessment does not arise. The petitioners
already have number of years' experience to their advantage. The
UGC, too, in its reply has nowhere stated that the petitioners
required minimum 50% marks in the interview alone. There may
have been some doubt that 50% marks were required in interview
alone, under the Expert Assessment System, in case, there was
no other marks granted under the head of Expert Assessment.
As per the reply of the UGC, the assessment of the research
publications including books, is also required to be done by three
eminent experts and the candidates are required to obtain
minimum of three positive recommendations from the Experts on
the assessment of the research publications. This suggest that

21

expert assessment does not mean interview alone. Thus, the

interpretation

by

the

University

is

based

on

erroneous

interpretation of the Regulations and the criteria laid down.

Moreover, the said criteria, as per Annexure-R/1, was followed for
the first time now in the year 2015 as the present selection
process has taken place for the first time in the year 2011 in
pursuance to the UGC Regulations, 2010. Thus, it is not the case
of the respondents that they have been following this criteria for
the promotion on the basis of CAS earlier as well. Thus, the
University fell in error while giving its own interpretation and
meaning to the definition of Expert Assessment, which was
contrary to the language of the Regulations.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed with
the following directions:(i) The petitioners shall be considered for promotion, if otherwise
found eligible, on the post of Professor on the basis of their 50%
marks obtained under the Expert Assessment system by taking
the aggregate of all the three heads, namely, contribution to
research; assessment of domain knowledge and teaching
practices; and interview performance;
(ii)The said promotion will be from the date when others
candidates were promoted from the post of Associate Professor
to the post of Professor under the CAS in pursuance to the
applications invited on 14.10.2011
NK

(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.