National Institute of Fashion Technology v. Vijay Kumar Dua

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 13771/2025 & CM APPLs. 56446-47/2025

2. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.3726/2024, titled Vijay Kumar Dua & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., whereby the said O.A. filed by the respondents herein was disposed of with the following directions:

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as Assistant Professors on 28.06.1996 and 07.07.1997 respectively, whereas the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Assistant Professors on 01.07.1999 and 20.11.1998 respectively.

4. Subsequently, the respondent nos.[1] and 2 were promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 01.07.2004, and were posted at the Gandhi Nagar Campus and the Chennai Campus. However, they did not join their respective places of posting, and therefore, by Order dated 27.07.2004, their promotion was cancelled. Thereafter, the respondent nos.1, 2, and 4 were promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 01.09.2005 and posted at the Delhi Centre, where they joined the said post on the same date.

5. As far as the respondent no.3 is concerned, he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 03.10.2005. He also did not join the place of posting, and his posting order was later changed to NIFT Delhi vide Order dated 04.01.2006. The respondent no.3 finally joined the said post on 09.01.2006.

6. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the post of Professor was held on 16.06.2008, however, since the respondent nos.[1] to 4 had not completed their residency period, they were not considered for promotion.

7. In the Review DPC held on 29.05.2013, convened to consider the representations of ten Assistant Professors, including the respondent nos.[3] and 4, for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, they were granted ante-dated promotion with effect from 01.07.2004. Similarly, on the representation of the respondent nos.[1] and 2, a Review DPC held on 14.09.2016, which granted them retrospective promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 01.07.2004. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 were later promoted to the post of Professor on 01.09.2019.

8. On the basis that their promotion to the post of Associate Professor had been ante-dated, they claimed entitlement to be considered along with the batch of Associate Professors who had been considered in the DPC held on 16.06.2008. They made representations to the petitioners seeking promotion to the post of Professor with effect from 2008. They also filed an Original Application, being O.A. No.834/2023, before the learned Tribunal, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide its Order dated 22.03.2023, directing the petitioners to consider the representations of the respondents.

9. The petitioners, vide Orders dated 07.05.2024, allowed the representations of the respondents and directed that a Review DPC of 2008 be constituted to consider their eligibility for the post of Professor from a retrospective date. As the Review DPC was not held for a considerable period of time, the respondents filed the above O.A, that is, O.A. No.3726/2024, before the learned Tribunal.

10. The petitioners before the learned Tribunal raised only one objection, which is that the respondents had not joined their respective places of posting to the post of Associate Professor. Insofar as respondent nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the only ground urged by the petitioners to oppose the said O.A. was that since they had not joined their places of posting pursuant to the promotion granted to them as Associate Professors, their promotion had been cancelled, and they were subsequently promoted to the said post only on 01.09.2005. Similarly, respondent nos. 3 and 4 joined their posts as Associate Professor only on 01.09.2005 and 09.01.2006 respectively, due to which they had not completed the requisite residency period for promotion from the post of Assistant Professor.

11. The petitioners further contended that the Recruitment Rules were in the process of being framed and that there were instructions from the Nodal Ministry, that is, the Ministry of Textiles, not to proceed with promotion until the Recruitment Rules were framed.

12. The learned Tribunal, however, observed that since the petitioners themselves had passed orders directing that a Review DPC be held to reconsider the cases of the respondents for promotion to the post of Professor, they could not now be permitted to urge a new ground to oppose the said relief.

13. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that, as on 2008, the respondents did not possess the essential qualification for the post of Professor. He submits that for promotion to the post of Professor, the respondents/candidates were required to possess a Ph.D., which admittedly they did not. He further submits that, having given up their earlier promotion, respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not eligible to be promoted to the post of Professor along with the 2008 batch, as they also lacked the requisite experience. He also submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Recruitment Rules were in the process of being redrafted and that the Nodal Ministry has advised the petitioners not to effect any promotions in the meantime.