The Patna High Court has clarified important aspects regarding the pay-scale, career advancement, and re-designation of Physical Education personnel working in Bihar’s universities and constituent colleges. The writ petitions—clubbed together—were filed by a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) from a constituent college under Veer Kunwar Singh University (VKSU), seeking (i) seniority and promotional pay under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), (ii) parity of pay with UGC scales from the proper qualifying date, and (iii) change of nomenclature from PTI to Director/Assistant Director of Physical Education in line with UGC norms and state decisions. The Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri) delivered an oral judgment dated 17 December 2024.
At the outset, the Court recorded the petitioner’s service history: appointed as PTI on 5 August 1985 in a sanctioned post at a women’s college in Rohtas district; regularized with effect from 6 August 1985; B.P.Ed. obtained on 28 June 1991 and post-graduation on 20 May 1994. Over the years, UGC revised the PTI scale and the State and VKSU adopted UGC scales—yet the petitioner alleged denial of timely parity and re-designation.
The State’s position was that the University is the competent authority for fixation within State-prescribed scales, and that UGC scales apply only to those who meet prescribed qualifications. The University, for its part, pointed to a 4 June 2019 speaking order by the Vice-Chancellor rejecting re-designation on the ground that no sanctioned post of Director, Physical Education existed in VKSU or the concerned college; it also argued that CAS applies only to teachers, not to non-teaching staff like PTIs.
Central to the case was the UGC’s 22 July 1988 notification on “revision of pay-scales of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and other measures for maintenance of standards in higher education.” Clause 4 states that revised pay-scales for Librarians and Physical Education Personnel are the same as those for teachers, subject to conditions regarding prior sanctioned scales and qualifications, and emphasizes that entitlement is not by designation alone. The judgment quotes this clause in extenso.
Equally important, Appendix II, Clause 8 of the same UGC scheme sets out the CAS for Assistant Directors/Directors of Physical Education (and Librarians). It provides for placement in a Senior Scale upon completion of eight years of service, participation in prescribed refresher/summer courses, and satisfactory performance appraisal. The Court’s narration reproduces this clause.
After discussing pleadings and the statutory/UGC framework, the Court issued three key directions/findings:
- On Re-designation (nomenclature change): The Court directed VKSU to place the petitioner’s case before the Syndicate at the earliest—and preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order—with a proposal to change the petitioner’s designation to Director, Physical Education, provided all requirements under the 22 July 1988 notification are satisfied. If needed, the University must seek administrative approval from the State and, if necessary, create a new post of Director, Physical Education.
- On CAS applicability: The University’s objection that CAS applies “only to teachers” was expressly rejected. Relying on Clause 8 of Appendix II, the Court held this objection has “no leg to stand” and set it aside. This affirms that Physical Education Personnel covered by the scheme are entitled to CAS benefits subject to eligibility.
- On the correct date for UGC pay-scale: The Court noted the petitioner’s stance that, having obtained the relevant qualification earlier, he should receive UGC scale from 1991 rather than 20 May 1994. The Court directed the University Syndicate to take an appropriate decision on the date of entitlement within the same two-month window.
With these directions, the writ petitions were disposed of without costs.
In sum, the Court has (i) upheld the normative linkage between Physical Education Personnel and teachers’ scales under the UGC framework, (ii) recognized CAS availability for Physical Education Personnel, and (iii) required the University to actively consider re-designation and the appropriate effective date for UGC scale entitlement within a defined timeframe.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This decision is significant for Physical Education Personnel across Bihar’s universities and constituent colleges. First, it confirms that the UGC’s 22 July 1988 scheme applies to qualifying Physical Education Personnel for parity in scales with teachers, not by mere designation but by meeting stipulated conditions and qualifications. This gives clarity to institutions that had previously hesitated to apply CAS or re-designation benefits to PTIs and similar posts.
Second, by setting aside the University’s objection that CAS is “only for teachers,” the Court brings Physical Education Personnel squarely under CAS where the scheme so provides. This can have a ripple effect on service benefits, including time-bound placements and promotional scales, subject to fulfillment of the scheme’s conditions like refresher courses and satisfactory performance.
Third, the Court’s direction to place the re-designation issue before the Syndicate—coupled with permission to seek State approval and even create the necessary post—signals that universities cannot deny nomenclature change merely because a sanctioned post does not currently exist. Institutional steps must be initiated to align designations with approved UGC/State policy, thus addressing longstanding anomalies.
Finally, the insistence on a time-bound decision for the correct effective date of UGC pay-scale ensures that service benefits are not indefinitely delayed by procedural back-and-forth between the State and the University. This protects employees’ financial rights while leaving the final determination to the competent academic/statutory bodies.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether Physical Education Personnel are entitled to parity with teachers’ pay-scales under UGC’s 22 July 1988 notification.
— Yes. Clause 4 equates pay-scales of Librarians and Physical Education Personnel with teachers, subject to qualifications and earlier sanctioned scales; entitlement is not by designation alone. - Whether CAS applies to Physical Education Personnel or only to teachers.
— CAS applies where the scheme so provides. Relying on Appendix II, Clause 8, the Court set aside the University’s objection that CAS is confined to teachers. - Whether the University can decline re-designation to Director/Assistant Director of Physical Education due to absence of a sanctioned post.
— The University must place the case before the Syndicate within two months; if required, seek State approval and create the post to effect re-designation, subject to eligibility under the 1988 scheme. - From which date the petitioner is entitled to UGC pay-scale (1991 upon qualification, or 20 May 1994 as applied earlier).
— The University Syndicate must decide the correct date within two months of communication of the order.
Case Title
Hriday Prakash Gupta v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
C.W.J.C. No. 1824 of 2020 (with C.W.J.C. No. 5641 of 2021).
Citation(s)
2025 (1) PLJR 536
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri.
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate.
- For the State (CWJC 1824/2020): Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw (GP-23) with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, AC to GP-23.
- For the University: Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate.
- For the State (CWJC 5641/2021): Mr. Samir Kumar, AC to GP-20.
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTgyNCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-aOyItHJhSl0=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
