TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 16-3-2010 - Ashok Kumar Das Ors Versus University Of Burdwan Ors Markandey Katju, A.K. Patnaik JJ. Dated 16 March, 2010 JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2002 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in MAT No.2604 of 2001 and CAN No.1624 of 2001 filed by some members of the non-teaching staff of the University of Burdwan [For short `the University']. 2. The facts very briefly are that promotions to different grades of non-teaching staff of the Burdwan University were being done on the basis of seniority. On 26.06.1995, the Executive Council of the University considered the principle of promotion as enunciated in the Government O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 26.06.1995 and directed the University to re-frame its guidelines for promotion strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 17.10.1985 in the light of the observations made in the judgment and to give promotion to the candidates on the basis of the Government Order dated 17.10.1985 after re-framing the guidelines. 4. The University challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta and the Division Bench held in the impugned judgment and order that under Section 21 (xiii) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 the Executive Council of the University was empowered to determine, with the approval of the State Government, the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decisions of this Court in T. R. Kapur Ors. v. State of Haryana Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 415], Prem Kumar Verma Anr. v. Union of India Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 457], Union of India v. S. S. Uppal Anr. [(1996) 2 SCC 168], Kulwant Kumar Sood v. State of H. P. Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 670] and High Court of Delhi Anr., Etc. v. A. K. Mahajan Ors. [(2009) 12 SCC 62], learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995 and approved by the State Government on 10.10.2002 cannot, therefore, apply to promotions to vacancies which have occurred prior to 10.10.2002. Learned counsel for the Intervenors supported the aforesaid stand of the appellants. 6. Learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Insurance Corpn. of India v. Escorts Ltd. [(1986) 1 SCC 264], considering the distinction between special permission and general permission , previous approval or prior approval in para 63 held that: We are conscious that the word `prior' or `previous' may be implied if the contextual situation or the object and design of the legislation demands it, we find no such compelling circumstances justifying reading any such implication into Section 29(1) of the Act. Ordinarily, the difference between approval and permission is that in the first case the action holds good until it is disapproved, while in the other case it does not become effective until permission is obtained. But permission subsequently granted may validate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permission of the State Government the Executive Council of the University could not determine the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching staff. Similarly, if the words used were with the prior approval of the State Government , the Executive Council of the University could not determine the terms and conditions of service of the non-teaching staff without first obtaining the approval of the State Government. But since the words used are with the approval of the State Government , the Executive Council of the University could determine the terms and conditions of service of the non-teaching staff and obtain the approval of the State Government subsequently and in case the State Government did not grant approval subsequently, any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
