A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Registrar, Karnataka University & Anr. v. Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr. authoritatively settles the controversy relating to the effective date of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for university teachers whose prior service was rendered in affiliated colleges. The dispute arose from the claim of an Associate Professor, who, after joining a constituent department of Karnataka University, sought CAS promotion to the post of Professor from a date anterior to his entry into university service by relying upon his earlier teaching experience in an affiliated college. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the interpretation of the term “College” under the relevant Statute framed under Section 40(1)(k) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, and to determine whether service in an affiliated college could justify a retrospective effective date of CAS promotion within the University.

The Court undertook a purposive and harmonious interpretation of the Statute, particularly the Preamble and Clauses 12.6 and 12.7, and decisively rejected the expansive interpretation adopted by the High Court. It held that while past service in affiliated colleges may be counted for eligibility, the effective date of promotion cannot precede the date of entry into the service of the University or its constituent colleges. The judgment reinforces settled principles of service jurisprudence that promotion is intrinsically linked to the employer-employee relationship and cannot be granted for periods when such relationship did not subsist. The ruling restores institutional discipline in CAS promotions and clarifies the legal distinction between constituent colleges and affiliated colleges for promotional benefits.

Keywords: Career Advancement Scheme; Constituent College; Affiliated College; Service Law; University Promotion

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation emerged from the regulatory framework governing academic promotions in state universities following the implementation of revised UGC pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006. In compliance with UGC notifications and governmental orders, Karnataka University framed a detailed Statute regulating direct recruitment and promotions under CAS for teachers and allied academic personnel. The Statute sought to balance recognition of academic experience with institutional accountability by prescribing eligibility conditions, evaluation mechanisms, and service requirements.

The respondent-teacher, after serving in an affiliated college, entered the service of Karnataka University as an Associate Professor in October 2013. Though granted CAS promotion to the post of Professor from the date of his eligibility within university service, he asserted that his prior service in the affiliated college entitled him to a much earlier effective date. The High Court, adopting a liberal interpretation of the word “College”, extended the benefit retrospectively.

The appeal before the Supreme Court raised broader concerns about statutory interpretation, institutional autonomy, and the limits of equitable considerations in service law. The Court was thus required to delineate the boundary between counting of past service and grant of promotional benefits, while preserving the intent and structure of the CAS framework.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The first respondent served as an Associate Professor in J.S.S. College, an affiliated college of Karnataka University, from 01.01.2006. He completed more than three years in that cadre by 01.01.2009. Subsequently, pursuant to Syndicate Resolution No. 24 dated 26.10.2013, he was appointed as an Associate Professor in the P.G. Department of Mathematics of Karnataka University and joined service on 28.10.2013. His appointment was later confirmed with effect from the same date.

In response to a University Circular dated 04.07.2013 inviting CAS applications, the respondent applied for promotion to the post of Professor. He appeared before the Board of Appointment and was recommended for promotion. By order dated 16.02.2016, he was promoted as Professor with effect from 28.10.2013, after accounting for his past service for eligibility purposes.

Dissatisfied, the respondent submitted representations seeking CAS promotion from 01.01.2009. The University rejected the claim through Syndicate Resolution No. 36 dated 19.07.2017 and an endorsement dated 04.08.2017, stating that the Statute did not permit such retrospective effect.

The respondent challenged this decision before the High Court, which allowed the writ petition and directed retrospective promotion. The Division Bench affirmed this view, prompting the University to approach the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether service rendered in an affiliated college can determine the effective date of CAS promotion in a University.
ii. Whether the term “College” in Clause 12.7 of the CAS Statute includes affiliated colleges.
iii. Whether promotion under CAS can be granted for a period when the teacher was not in the service of the University or its constituent colleges.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant-University submitted that the respondent was admittedly not in the service of the University prior to 28.10.2013. It was argued that CAS promotion is a personal promotion linked to a substantive sanctioned post, as clarified under Clause 12.6. The Statute, read with its Preamble, restricts eligibility to teachers on the rolls of the University or its constituent colleges.

It was further contended that while Clause 17 allows counting of past service for eligibility, it does not authorise retrospective conferment of promotional status. The High Court, according to the appellants, erred in importing the definition of “College” from Section 2(2) of the Act into the CAS framework, contrary to settled principles of purposive interpretation.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent argued that the Statute applies broadly to university teachers and colleges, and the term “College” must be understood in light of the inclusive definition under Section 2(2) of the Act. It was submitted that the respondent fulfilled all eligibility criteria by 01.01.2009 and denial of retrospective promotion was arbitrary.

Reliance was placed on the wording of Clause 12.7, contending that a liberal and beneficial interpretation was necessary to advance the object of CAS, which is to reward academic experience irrespective of institutional transitions.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that CAS promotion cannot operate retrospectively to a period when the teacher was not in the service of the University. It clarified that affiliated colleges and constituent colleges occupy distinct positions within the statutory framework.

The Court emphasised that the High Court’s approach ignored the structural intent of the Statute and improperly extended promotional benefits beyond permissible limits. The promotion granted from 28.10.2013 was upheld as legally valid.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio rests on the principle that promotion presupposes an existing service relationship. The Court held that the word “College” in the CAS Statute must be interpreted in harmony with the Preamble and relevant clauses, restricting it to constituent colleges. Past service in affiliated colleges can be counted for eligibility but cannot determine the effective date of promotion.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that importing statutory definitions mechanically, without regard to context and purpose, leads to distortion of legislative intent. It cautioned against judicial overreach in service matters governed by detailed statutory schemes.

c) GUIDELINES

i. CAS promotions must take effect only from the date of entry into university or constituent college service.
ii. Past service may be considered solely for eligibility and not for retrospective benefits.
iii. Statutory interpretation must align with the Preamble and object of the scheme.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces doctrinal clarity in service jurisprudence by reaffirming that equitable considerations cannot override statutory boundaries. It preserves the integrity of CAS by preventing anomalous retrospective promotions and safeguards institutional accountability. The ruling provides authoritative guidance to universities across India in structuring CAS benefits and resolving similar disputes.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. Registrar, Karnataka University & Anr. v. Dr. Prabhugouda & Anr., [2020] 9 S.C.R. 859.

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000.