period of lien cannot be treated and/or considered as teaching experience.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8184 OF 2022
Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari …Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Jugran and Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
14. In the present case, at the time when the appellant was appointed
as Vice-Chancellor, even according to the appellant he was having a
19
teaching experience of 8 years and 5 months as Professor in the
University. The appellant rendered service as a professor for the period
between 2009 to 2017 till he was appointed as member of the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 7.10.2017. He continued as
a member of the Public Service Commission till 13.08.2020 when he was
appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. It is the case on behalf of
the appellant that while serving as a member of the Public Service
Commission, the appellant was on a long leave and his lien was
continued on the post of Professor and therefore the said period between
7.10.2017 to 13.08.2020 may be considered for the purpose of counting
the experience cannot be accepted. Merely because his lien was
continued on the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued
to teach and/or he was having the teaching experience during the period
of lien. Even considering Article 319 of the Constitution of India, while
working as a member of the Public Service Commission, he could not
have rendered any other work on any other post. Therefore, the
contention on behalf of the appellant that the period spent by the
appellant from 7.10.2017 to 13.08.2020 as a member of the Public
Service Commission should be added to his teaching experience,
holding lien on the substantive post, cannot be accepted. Merely
because such lien is held, the period of lien, by no stretch of imagination,
can be treated and/or considered as teaching experience.