IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2004

Ashok Kumar Das & Ors.                                 … Appellants

Versus

University of Burdwan & Ors.                           … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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  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 non-teaching staff of the University.  The Executive  

Council  of  the University  in its meeting on 26.06.1995 also  

resolved the manner in which the efficiency of a candidate for  

promotion  will  be  considered  along  with  seniority  for  

promotions  to  different  grades.   For  the  first  promotion,  

efficiency of the employee was to be determined on the basis of  

recording in his personal file and the report received from the  

Controlling Officer of the candidate; for the second promotion,  

50% weightage will  be given to efficiency, out of which 25%  

would  be  allotted  for  work performance  and 25% would  be  

allotted  to  a  written  test  for  ascertaining  the  subject  

competence of the candidate and for the third promotion, the  

efficiency was to be determined on the basis of recording in the  

personal  file  and the report  of  the Controlling Officer.   The  

2

Resolution of the Executive Council of the University taken in  

its  meeting  on  26.06.1995  was  to  be  implemented  with  

immediate effect.   

3. Aggrieved by the Resolution of the Executive Council of  

the University, some of the appellants filed the Writ Petition  

being C.O. No.17139 (W) of 1995 and a learned Single Judge  

of the High Court of Calcutta allowed the writ petition in part  

and set aside the Resolution of the Executive Council of the  

University taken 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  

3

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 26.06.1995.  By the impugned  

judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court of  

Calcutta directed the University to send the proposal in the  

Resolution of the Executive Council of the University adopted  

on 26.06.1995 to the State Government for its approval and  

further directed that in case the State Government approves  

the  proposal,  the  University  will  undertake  the  exercise  of  

promotion of their staff.  Pursuant to the impugned judgment  

and order of the Division Bench, the proposal was sent to the  

State  Government  and  the  State  Government  by  its  order  

dated  10.10.2002  has  approved  the  Resolution  of  the  

Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995.   

5. The contention raised before us by the learned counsel  

for  the  appellants  was that  the  Resolution of  the  Executive  

Council  of  the  University  adopted  on  26.06.1995  will  be  

effective  only  from 10.10.2002  when  the  State  Government  

4

approved the Resolution and will not apply to any promotions  

made prior to 10.10.2002 because under Section 21 (xiii)  of  

the Burdwan University Act, 1981 the Executive Council of the  

University  could  determine the terms and conditions of  the  

service  of  the  non-teaching  staff  of  the  Colleges  other  than  

Government  Colleges  with  the  approval  of  the  State  

Government and not otherwise.  Relying 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.

5

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 been held by this  

Court in U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. v. Friends  

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. [(1995) Supp.(3)  

SCC 456] and High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.  

P. Singh & Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 239] that when an approval is  

required, an action holds good and only if it is disapproved it  

loses its force.  He further submitted that promotions made on  

the  basis  of  Resolution  of  the  Executive  Council  of  the  

University  adopted on 26.06.1995,  therefore,  hold good and  

now that the State Government has approved the Resolution of  

the Executive Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995  

by order dated 10.10.2002, the promotions made on the basis  

of the Resolution dated 26.06.1995 of the Executive Council of  

the  University  hold  good  and  cannot  be  set  aside  by  this  

Court.   

7. In  Black’s  Law  Dictionary  (Fifth  Edition),  the  word  

“approval”  has  been explained thus:  “the  act  of  confirming,  

6

ratifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to some act or  

thing done by another.”   Hence, approval to an act or decision  

can also be subsequent to the act or decision.

8. In U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), this Court  

made the distinction between permission, prior approval and  

approval.  Para 6 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

“6. This Court in  Life 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 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  the  Management  must  obtain  approval  was  distinguished  from  the  requirement  that it must obtain permission, of which mention is  made in Section 33(1).”       

7

9. Following  the  decision  in  U.  P.  Avas  Evam  Vikas  

Parishad  (supra),  this  Court  again  held  in  High Court  of  

Judicature for Rajasthan v.  P. P. Singh & Ors. (supra) in  

para 40:

“When an approval is required, an action holds good  and only if it is disapproved it loses its force.  Only  when a  permission  is  required,  the  decision  does  not  become  effective  till  permission  is  obtained.  (See  U.P.  Avas  Evam  Vikas  Parishad v.  Friends  Coop. Housing Society Ltd.).”

10. Section 21 (xiii) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 is  

quoted herein below:-

“21.   Subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  the  Executive  Council  shall  exercise  the  following  powers and perform the following functions:

(i) to  (xii) ……………………

(xiii) to determine, with the approval of the State  Government, the terms and conditions of service  of Librarians and non-teaching staff.”

The  words  used  in  Section  21  (xiii)  are  not  “with  the  

permission of the State Government” nor “with the approval of  

the  State  Government”,  but  “with the  approval  of  the  State  

Government”.  If the words used were “with the permission of  

8

the  State  Government”,  then without  the  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 action taken on the basis of the decision of  

the Executive Council of the University would be invalid and  

not otherwise.  

11.   We, therefore, hold that promotions to different grades  

of non-teaching staff made by the University on the basis of  

the  principles  laid  down in the  Resolution of  the  Executive  

Council of the University adopted on 26.06.1995 are valid as  

9

the Resolution has been approved by the State Government on  

10.10.2002.   This  appeal  is  without  any  merit  and  is  

dismissed with no order as to costs.  

……………………..J.                                                                    (Markandey Katju)

……………………..J.                                                                    (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi, March 16, 2010.    

10