HC slams Murthal university for discriminatory denial of promotion; imposes Rs 1 lakh costs

Rapping the Deenbandu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology for denying promotion to two employees in an "outrightly arbitrary and discriminatory" manner, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed Rs 1 lakh costs. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya directed the university to consider and promote the petitioners, while setting aside the order denying annual increment to them for not qualifying the State Eligibility Test in Computer Appreciation and Applications.

Justice Dahiya asserted that the petitioners were promoted as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operators on November 10, 2015, and subsequently cleared the university’s computer test, earning them increments vide office order dated July 30, 2018.

The instructions dated November 17, 2018, issued by the State mandating SETC clearance for clerks was adopted by the university vide executive council resolution dated March 5, 2019. It simultaneously exempted employees who were already working, had qualified the test and were drawing annual increments. Justice Dahiya observed the petitioners, as such, “stood exempted from qualifying SETC as a pre-condition for further promotion” leaving no basis to deny their claim.

“Resultantly, there was no justification for the respondents to deny the promotion to them on account of not qualifying SETC. The specious plea of inability to grant promotion on account of objections by a government auditor cannot be accepted. This helplessness shown by the university due to obstinacy by a government official is nothing more than a lame excuse to avoid following the rules. It also shows an apathetic attitude towards the binding executive council resolution, that too at the cost of employees like the petitioners,” the Court observed.

Justice Dahiya added that the university was bound to follow its Act and statutes, in addition to decisions taken by its authority – the executive council. The Vice-Chancellor, too, was “enjoined upon the duty to “give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the university”. 

As such, not granting promotion to the petitioners was “outrightly arbitrary and discriminatory as the university acted in derogation of its EC resolution, dated March 5, 2019, in denying promotion to them despite being fully eligible, and promoted the private respondent-employees in their place with effect from August 27, 2021.

Holding the petitioners entitled to promotion with retrospective effect, Justice Dahiya directed the University “to consider and promote the petitioners as Assistant with effect from August 27, 202,1 with notional benefits and actual benefits from January 25, 2022, the date they have already been promoted. Due arrears of the salary on the promoted post will also be paid to them from that date with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum till actual payment,” the Bench added.