Judgment:
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Appellant has preferred an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment and order dated 11th March, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition being WP (C) No. 3246 of 2002.
2. The issue pertains to the seniority of the Appellant vis-a-vis Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The question of seniority is relevant for determining who is to become the Head of Department of Sanskrit in Delhi University.
3. The Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were initially Readers in the Department of Sanskrit in the University. There is no dispute that the Appellant was then senior to both the Respondents in the grade of Reader.
4. In 1983, the University Grants Commission announced a 'Merit Promotion Scheme' (for short MPS-1983) to remove the stagnation created in various cadres of several departments of the University. MPS-1983 envisaged time bound promotions to the post of Lecturers, Readers and Professors and was adopted and implemented by Delhi University in 1983 itself. In 1987, another Merit Promotion Scheme (for short MPS-1987) was adopted by the University.
5. On 20th July, 1994 all the Heads of Departments of the University were issued a circular informing them (and other teachers) that some of them had inadvertently or due to some inadequate information opted for MPS-1987. The circular gave an option to all the teachers to opt out of MPS-1987 and continue with MPS-1983. The option was to be exercised latest by 31st August, 1994.
6. The Appellant sent a letter dated 4th November, 1994 to the Vice Chancellor of the University indicating that he would now like to opt for MPS-1983 and that the delay in applying was due to the fact that the circular dated 20th July, 1994 had not come to his notice. The Appellant also prayed for condensation of delay in making the application.
7. The request of the Appellant was not acceded to and his application was rejected. The Appellant made a further application but that met the same fate.
8. In the meanwhile in 1993, the University advertised one post of Professor of Sanskrit for filling up the same through direct recruitment. The Appellant and Respondent No. 3 applied for the post but it appears that neither of them was selected since Respondent No. 1 again advertised the post in February, 1994. Pursuant to the advertisement issued in February, 1994 the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 again made an application but it appears that neither of them was selected.
9. Eventually on 10th April, 1996 the University invited fresh applications for filling up two posts of Professors in the Department of Sanskrit through open and direct selection. This time, the Appellant and Respondents No. 3 and 4 applied. Both the Respondents were selected to the exclusion of the Appellant and they were issued letters of appointment dated 11th November, 1996. Thereafter, they worked as Professors in the Department of Sanskrit in the University.
10. The Appellant persisted with his request for being given the benefit of MPS-1983 for selection as Professor under that scheme. Eventually, the request of the Appellant was accepted and by an office order dated 20th April, 1998 it was intimated that the Executive Council of the University had promoted the Appellant as Professor with effect from 11th August, 1996 under MPS-1983.
11. Apparently, since the post of Head of the Department of Sanskrit was expected to fall vacant in March, 2002, Respondent No. 3 wrote to the University enquiring about his seniority vis-a-vis the Appellant. By a letter dated 10th December, 2001, the Registrar of the University informed him that since the Appellant was promoted with effect from 11th August, 1996, he would rank senior to Respondents No. 3 and 4 who joined as Professors only in November, 1996.
12. Feeling aggrieved by the response dated 10th December, 2001, Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition in this Court being CW No. 7728/2001 in which it was prayed that the said letter be quashed.
13. During the pendency of the writ petition the University appointed Respondent No. 3 as Head of the Department of Sanskrit with immediate effect for a period of three years, by a Notification dated 14th March, 2002. In other words, the University now took the view that Respondents No. 3 and 4 were senior to the Appellant. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 withdrew the writ petition filed by him.
14. As a result of these developments, the Appellant approached this Court through a writ petition being CW 3246/2002 in which he prayed for quashing of the Notification dated 14th March, 2002 and also that he should be appointed as Head of the Department of Sanskrit in the University. This writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order.
15. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the only question that was seriously agitated was with regard to the interpretation of Statute 37 of the University made under the Delhi University Act, 1922. This Statute reads as follows:-
37(1) Whenever, in accordance with these Statutes, any person is to hold an office or be a member of any Authority of the University by rotation, according to seniority such seniority shall be determined according to the length of continuous service of such person in his grade or post, as the case may be and in accordance with such other principles as the Executive Council may, from time to time, prescribe.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to prepare and maintain, in respect of each class of persons, to whom the provisions of this Statute apply, a complete and up to date seniority list in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing clause.
(3) If two or more persons have equal length of continuous service in a particular grade or post, or the relative seniority of any person or persons is otherwise in doubt, the Registrar may on his own motion, and shall, at the request of any such person, submit the matter to the Executive Council whose decision thereon shall be final.
16. In the written submissions filed by the Appellant, it has also been contended that the learned Single Judge misunderstood the rejection of the Appellant's applications for being given the benefit of MPS-1983 and that he had wrongly assumed that this meant that the Appellant was not found fit for being promoted as a Professor. We need not go into this aspect of the matter (and other peripheral issues) because it really makes no difference to the ultimate result of the appeal.
17. Statute 37 clearly requires that seniority of a person is to be determined according to his length of continuous service in a grade or post as the case may be. Additionally, such other principles as the Executive Council of the University may, from time to time, prescribe would also be applicable. Going by the literal interpretation of this Statute, it is quite clear that since the length of continuous service of Respondents No. 3 and 4 in the grade of Professor was longer than that of the Appellant, they should rank senior to the Appellant in the grade of Professor, even though the selection of the Appellant may have been made retrospective.
18. It was contended by learned counsel for the Appellant that since the Executive Council had accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee and had promoted the Appellant with effect from 11th August, 1996, the latter part of Statute 37(1) would be applicable. Reliance was also placed on a Resolution passed by the Executive Council of the University being Resolution No. 45 dated 30th April, 1999. The relevant portion of this Resolution has been extracted by the learned Single Judge and this reads as follows:-
Appointment of a teacher to next higher post/grade under the relevant Merit Promotion Scheme will take effect from the date of his/her eligibility for that post/grade irrespective of the date of the meeting of the Selection Committee recommending his/her promotion.
19. We cannot agree with learned counsel for the Appellant on both counts.
20. As regards the interpretation of Statute 37 (1), the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant would require us to read the conjunctive 'and' as a disjunctive 'or' in the Statute. There is no reason for doing so. It is well settled that the word 'and' may be read as 'or' only if a literal reading of the words produces an absurd or unintelligible result or produces a grammatical distortion which makes no sense. It is not as if the word 'and' should be read as 'or' if it is convenient to do so. The language of a Statute should not ordinarily be interfered with if it makes sense, and in the present case the literal reading of the Statute does not produce any absurd result nor has it caused any ambiguity.
21. Resolution No. 45 dated 30th April, 1999 is not relevant since it does not make any reference to seniority. All that it says is that the appointment of a teacher to the next higher post or grade would be with effect from the date of his or her eligibility irrespective of the date when the Selection Committee met. In fact, this is precisely what has been done in the case of the Appellant inasmuch as though the selection took place much later, the promotion of the Appellant was made with effect from 11th August, 1996. This is consistent with Resolution No. 45; but the applicability of this Resolution cannot be stretched to vary the principle of seniority laid down by Statute 37(1) which requires determination of seniority according to the length of continuous service. Moreover, the Resolution was passed in 1999; it cannot affect a decision taken in 1998 to the extent of upsetting seniority based on continuous length of service.
22. We also cannot overlook the fact that in an open selection that took place pursuant to the advertisement dated 10th April, 1996, only Respondents No. 3 and 4 were selected, meaning thereby that the Appellant was not found suitable for being directly recruited to the post of Professor. This clearly indicates that Respondents No. 3 and 4 were comparatively more meritorious than the Appellant. In view of this, it would not be appropriate to permit the Appellant to steal a march over these Respondents and claim seniority only on the basis of his becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Professor under MPS-1983. This would amount to giving to the Appellant a benefit that he did not deserve in the first place.
23. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge relied upon Najma Siddiqui (Prof.) v. University of Delhi : 1998IAD(Delhi)619 (upheld by a Division Bench in LPA No. 26/1998 decided on 21st May, 2001) in which it was held that the provisions of Statute 37 cannot be overridden by a resolution of the Executive Council which has to be consistent with the substantive provision of Statute 37, namely, reckoning of seniority on the basis of continuous length of service. We are of the view that the principle of law that has been decided in Najma Siddiqui is correct and that the seniority of the Appellant vis-a-vis Respondents No. 3 and 4 has to be reckoned from the date of continuous length of service in the grade of Professor. Since Respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed prior to the Appellant and had worked continuously as Professors for a period longer than the Appellant, they deserve to be treated senior to the Appellant.
24. In view of the above, we find no error in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is dismissed.