2010 (3) TMI 1058

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l 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 Order dated 17.10.1985 and resolved that criteria of 'Seniority-cum- Efficiency' as enunciated in the aforesaid Government Order dated 17.10.1985 will be followed for promotion to different grades of n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 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 staff of Colleges other than Government Colleges, but no approval of the State Government had been taken to the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University adopted in its meeting held on 26.06.1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [(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 counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, on the other hand, submitted that Section 21 (xiii) used the expression "approval of the State Government" and not "prior approval of the State Government" and it has be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld 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 previous Act, it was stated in Lord Krishna Textiles Mills Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 860], that the Management need not obtain the previous consent before taking any action. The requirement that ....