J&K HC Dismisses Appeal Over UGC CAS Senior Scale Placement

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by one Syeda Afshana Bhat challenging the grant of Senior Scale benefits under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS),to another professor holding that temporary service rendered in accordance with UGC Regulations can be counted for career advancement benefits.

The appellant, represented by Salih Pirzada, had challenged the decision of the University of Kashmir placing another candidate in the Senior Scale of Assistant Professors from an earlier date. It was argued that the respondent’s initial appointment was against a non-advertised post and that such service could not have been considered for CAS benefits.

The University of Kashmir and the private respondent, represented by Asif Maqbool, Advocate and S M Ayoub, Advocate, defended the decision, submitting that the respondent had participated in the selection process and that her temporary service was rightly counted under the applicable UGC Regulations.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani and Justice Sanjay Dhar rejected the challenge, holding that the respondent’s initial appointment was not illegal but a temporary/stop-gap arrangement, followed by substantive appointment.

The Court observed:

“It is not a case where initial appointment of respondent No.6 as Lecturer can be termed as illegal… but it is a case where her initial appointment was temporary or fortuitous in nature.”

Interpreting the UGC Regulations, the Bench held:

“The expression used is ‘counted for promotion’, and not ‘for eligibility to promotion’. There is a fine distinction between the two expressions.”

The Court further held:

“The fact that respondent No.6 has been granted upgradation under CAS from a date when she was not even substantively appointed to the post, is legally permissible.”

The Bench also rejected the challenge on the ground of delay and laches, noting that the appellant approached the Court more than ten years after the senior scale order was issued.

The Court observed:

“There has been inordinate delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner… she has acquiesced in the impugned action of the official respondents.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning stale claims relating to seniority and promotion, the Court held that settled service rights cannot be reopened after prolonged delay.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the Court finding no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Single Judge.