Shri Shashikant S. Pujari vs Shahaji Law College, Through Its ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 394 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.Y. Chandrahud, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The petitioner before the Court is a teacher in Political Science engaged by the First Respondent. The First Respondent is a College which imparts education in law at Kolhapur. The petitioner has pursued and completed courses in education leading up to the conferment of the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts and Master of Philosophy (B.A. ; M.A. and M.Phil.).

3. During the Academic Year 1983-84, the First Respondent started imparting instruction in the 5 year LL.B. degree course. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science on a clock hour basis and his appointment was approved as a temporary employee on that basis by the Shivaji University in a communication dated 27th June, 1984. During the year 1984-85, the chart of approvals of the University reflected the name of the Petitioner as a full timer. The appointment was approved once again for the Academic Year only on a temporary basis. The appointment of the Petitioner had been temporary during the previous year and continued to be so.

4. The University Selection Committee had been convened on 29th June, 1985 for selecting a candidate for the appointment as a Lecturer in Political Science at the First Respondent College. The report of the Selection Committee, however, states that no candidate had been found fit for appointment.

5. On 13th July, 1985 the Petitioner was appointed as a full-time lecturer in Political Science by the College with effect from 15th July, 1985, subject to the condition that he must pass the M. Phil within a period of six months. Once again, the petitioner was informed that this appointment was temporary, upto the end of the Academic Year 1985-86. The University, however, approved the appointment of the Petitioner only for the first term of the year 1985-86 as a full-time Lecturer in Political Science on a temporary basis. Consequently, on 5th October, 1985, the petitioner was informed by the College that in view of the approval of the University which was only for one term, the services of the petitioner could not be extended beyond 2nd November, 1985. When the Petitioner had initially been recruited by the College, he had been registered as a candidate for the M.Phil degree. On 27th January, 1986, the University declared the Petitioner to have successfully completed the M.Phil degree in the subject of Politics.

6. On 26th June, 1986, the local Selection Committee of the College interviewed candidates for appointment as a part-time Lecturer in Politics and recommended the Petitioner. On 30th August, 1986, the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in Political Science on a temporary basis for the Academic Year 1986-87. Thereafter, from time to time, the Petitioner was appointed as a part-time Lecturer by the College on a temporary basis during the succeeding Academic Years. Some of the appointment letters commencing from 1987-88 until 1992-93 have been placed on record by the Petitioner. There is no dispute about the fact that from the time to time appointment letters were issued to the Petitioner by the College as a part time Lecturer in Political Science. As would be noticed a little later, the case of the University is that commencing from the Academic Year 1986-87 and for the periods between 1987 and 1992, 1992 and 1993 and from 1995 until date, there has been no formal approval by the University to the appointment of the Petitioner.

7. On 8th November, 1988, the College addressed a communication to the Joint Director of Education for permission to make an appointment of a full-time Lecturer in Political Science for conducting classes to the extent of 12 hours every week. On 23rd June, 1999, the College also addressed a representation to the University seeking the approval of the University to the appointment of the Petitioner as a full time Lecturer with effect from June, 1999. The Petitioner on his own part had been representing to the College for his appointment as a full time Lecturer since according to him, there was a sufficient workload of 12 hours per week which would justify his regular appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and circulars. A representation dated 13th July, 1990 which had been addressed by the Petitioner to the College is annexed to the petition before the Court.

8. The case of the College was that its Principal had submitted proposals for the approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as a full-time Lecturer on several occasions, but that permission had been refused by the University on the ground that the Petitioner was not qualified for appointment. Communications of the University to that effect dated 5th September, 1985 and of 10th May, 1996 have been annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the College in these proceedings.

9. In response to the representation submitted by the College for the appointment of the Petitioner as a full-time Lecturer with effect from June, 1999, the Management Council of the University arrived at a decision on 30th October, 2000 by which it was resolved that approval should be granted for the appointment of the Petitioner as a full-time teacher. The College was, however, informed that a fine of Rs. 10,000/ was being imposed upon it since the approval of the University had not been obtained since 1983-84 to the appointment of the Petitioner. A communication dated 4th January, 2001 was addressed to the College by the University by which the College was directed to take steps for the appointment of the Petitioner as a full-time Lecturer with effect from 1983-84. The College was also informed about the imposition of a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

10. On 3rd May, 2001, the College submitted a representation requesting the University to reconsider its decision. The case of the college was that on numerous occasions since 1983, it had submitted proposals for the appointment of the Petitioner as a full-time teacher, but they were turned down on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified. The College, therefore, submitted that it was not in default and, on the contrary it was seeking to appoint the Petitioner as a full-time Lecturer with effect from June, 1999.

11. On 30th August, 2001, the College was informed by the University that a decision had been taken by the Management Council to remit the fine which had been imposed upon the college. Since the direction as regards the appointment of the Petitioner with effect from 1983-84 had not been reconsidered, a fresh representation dated 10th October, 2001 was addressed by the College tot he University. In its representation, the college reiterated its position that (i) Despite proposals, submitted by it in the past, the University had not approved the appointment of the petitioner on several occasions since 1983; (ii) The University Selection Committee had in June, 1985 found that there was no candidate whose name could be recommended: (iii) in June, 1997 the Joint Director of Education had restrained the College from filling up any post inter alia, in the subject of Political Science.

12. The Management council of the University, thereupon constituted a two member Committee on 20th June, 2002 to consider the grievance and representation of the College. In the affidavit in reply which has been filed in these proceedings by the College, it has been stated that the Committee visited the College and heard the Petitioner as well. The Committee submitted a report dated 28th September, 2002. The report of the Committee contain a chart setting out the dates of appointment of the Petitioner, the nature of the appointments whether on clock hour, part-time or full-time basis, the period of appointment, the break in service and the date of approval, if any, of the University. The chart appended to the report would show that commencing from 1986, the appointments of the Petitioner were not approved by the University. The salient findings of the report of the two (SIC) Committee are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner had not produced any material to show that he has been continuously working on full-time basis by achieving the required norm of 12 hours per week. On the other hand, the College had relied on a communication dated 18th December, 1988 of the University nothing that in the second year of the LL.B. Degree course, a apart of the curriculum in Paper-II could not be taught by a Lecturer having a degree only in M.A. in Political Science;

(ii) On two occasions, the petitioner had appeared before the University Selection Committee. On the first occasion, no candidate was recommended. On 29th June, 1986, the Committee had selected the Petitioner as a part timer. However, the University had not communicated any final decision in that regard:

(iii) The Petitioner had completed the M.Phil in 1986 and he was eligible for appointment. The requirement of passing the NET/SET Examination would not apply to the Petitioner in the circumstances;

(iv) With effect from June, 1999, there should be no objection to the appointment of the Petitioner on a full-time basis since with effect from that date, he had achieved the norm of 12 teaching hours per week.

13. The recommendation made by the Committee was placed before the Management Council. The Management Council by its decision dated 22nd October, 2002 declined to accept the recommendation of the Committee citing as its reason that the Petitioner did not fulfil the required qualification for appointment as a full-time teacher.

14. The Writ petition in this case was filed by the Petitioner on 31st October, 2001. In view of the subsequent developments which have taken place, the Petitioner has prayed for an amendment of the writ petition so as to impugn the decision of the two member Committee dated 28th September, 2002 and of the Management Council dated 22nd October, 2002. The amendment is allowed and the Petitioner is permitted to carry out the amendment forthwith. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Learned Counsel respectively on behalf of the College and the University and the Learned A.G.P. for the State.

15. On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been urged before the Court that the decision of the University to deprive him of the status of a full-time Lecturer is contrary to law and is inconsistent with the applicable rules and circulars. Counsel for the Petitioner urges that under a resolution dated 1st June, 1981, a teacher in a one man department is entitled to be recognised as a full timer if he has a workload of 12 teaching periods per week which is also confirmed by subsequent circulars of the Government and of the University. Counsel also urged that the qualifications requisite to the appointment of a Lecturer in Law were at the material time prescribed by the State Government in a G.R. dated 31st January, 1983 which in turn was based on the revised qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission. Counsel urged that the Petitioner duly fulfilled the requirement of the aforesaid G.R. Moreover, it was submitted that though the University had initially come to the conclusion on 30th October, 2000 that the petitioner should be appointed as a full-time Lecturer with effect from 1983-84, this decision was subsequently rescinded without any justification. Consequently, the submission was that even if the wider prayer for the recognition of the Petitioner as a full-time Lecturer with effect from 1983-84 is not granted, the Petitioner should at least be recognised in the alternative from June, 1999 as was proposed by the College, which found favour with the Committee which had been appointed by the University. The Learned Counsel urged that the Management Council had on 30th October, 2002 rejected the report of the Committee without any cogent reasons or justification.

16. On behalf of the First Respondent college, on the other hand, it was urged that there was no default whatsoever on the part of the College. Counsel urged that the Petitioner had initially been appointed on a clock hour basis in 1983-84 and later as a full-time Lecturer on a temporary basis. However, it was the University which had approved the appointment of the Petitioner only for the first term of 1985-86 as a temporary full timer. In June, 1985, the University Selection Committee had declined to recommend any candidate for appointment as a full-timer Lecturer. Counsel stated that even subsequently, the University had declined to approve the appointment of the Petitioner on the ground that he was not qualified. In these circumstances, it was submitted that it was arbitrary on the part of the University to inform the College on 4th January, 2001 that the Petitioner should be recognised as a full-time Lecturer with effect from 1983-84, and to have imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the college. Counsel urged that there was no default on the part of the College at any time, and in these circumstances, the College was justified in moving the University to reconsider its administrative decision. However, it has been stated fairly on behalf of the First Respondent college that the College has proposed to the University that the Petitioner may be recognised as a full-time Lecturer with effect from June, 1999. Counsel for the First Respondent stated that it is only in 1995 after a decision of the Supreme Court that the Government started furnishing financial aid to Law Colleges in the State including the First Respondent; and if the wider plea of the Petitioner were to be accepted, the College would be required to pay an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Petitioner which would lead virtually to the closure of the College.

17. On behalf of the University, the Learned Counsel has fairly placed before the Court all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case including the decisions arrived at by the University.

18. While considering the submissions which have been urged before the Court, it would at the outset be material to make a reference to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 1st June, 1981 which laid down the norms of workload for part-time and full-time College teachers. In so far as workload of full-time College teachers is concerned, the aforesaid resolution notes that as recommended by the University Grants Commission, the over all workload of a full-time College teacher will be 40 clock hours per week. Of these, the teacher is expected to put in 20 clock hours on the College premises consisting of 17 Lectures each of 45 minutes duration and 3 tutorials each of 45 minutes duration per week equivalent to 15 clock hours per week. The resolution, however, also states that where there is a one man department, the teacher concerned should be considered as a full timer even if he has a workload of 12 teaching period per week subject to his making good the short fall by taking additional lectures.

19. In the present case, the contention of the Petitioner is that the First Respondent started the Five year LL.B. Course in 1983-84 and when the subject of Political Science was introduced for the first time, there was a workload of 4 lectures per week. Subsequently, in 1984-85 coupled with the natural extension of the LL.B. degree course to the second year bath, there was a workload of 12 lectures per week which had to be undertaken by the Petitioner. This contention of the Petitioner is seriously disputed on behalf of the First Respondent College in the affidavit in reply. According to the College, the Petitioner was not the only person teaching the subject of Political Science and the Ex-Principal of the College also used to conduct a few lectures in the subject. According to the College, it was only in the Academic Year 1999-2000 that the Petitioner was qualified for appointment as a full timer on the basis of the workload assigned to him. This contention of the College has found favour with the fact finding Committee which was appointed by the University in June, 2002 and which submitted its report dated 28th September, 2002. The Committee has accepted the case of the Petitioner on the one hand that he is entitled to appointment as a full time Lecturer, but has accepted the contention of the College on the other hand that this can only be with effect from June, 1999. The determination as regards the workload which has been discharged by the Petitioner from time to time is essentially a 'question of fact. The fact finding Committee had the benefit of considering the views both of the Petitioner as well as the First Respondent College and it is after taking into account all the material facts and circumstances that the Committee concluded that it was only with effect from June, 1999 that the Petitioner can claim to have attained the workload requisite for the appointment of a full timer. These findings of fact cannot be reappreciated in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

20. The grievance of the Petitoner is that there was no justification for the University to reconsider the earlier decision of the Management Council dated 30th October, 2000 by which the College was directed to recognise the petitioner as a full-time employee with effect from 1983-84. We do not find any substance in that contention. The University, it must be noted, had been moved by the College on 23rd June, 1999 for its approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as a full-time Lecturer with effect from June. 1999. The petitioner on his part had also been submitting representations for his appointment on a full-time basis. The facts of the case which have been narrated earlier would reveal that the appointment of the Petitioner was on a clock hour basis during the Academic Year 1983-84. Subsequently, during the year 1984-85, the University communicated its approval to the appointment of the Petitoner as a full timer, on a temporary basis. For the Academic Year 1985-86, the approval which was granted by the University was only for the first term which ended in November, 1985. In the meantime, on 29th June 1985, the University Selection Committee had interviewed candidates for appointment to the full-time post of Lecturer in Political Science but had not found any candidate, including the petitioner, to be suitable. Subsequently, on 26th June, 1986, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the Petitioner, but on a part-time basis. The College has also placed on the record copies of communications issued by the University on 5th September, 1985 and 10th May, 1996 in which the University reiterated its position that the Petitioner was not qualified for appointment. Whether in fact, the petitioner was qualified is a separate issue, but at this stage, what is significant is that the College had on its part communicated with the University as regards the appointment of the Petitioner but the University had declined to approve the appointment. It was in this background that the First Respondent protested against the decision of the University requiring the College to recognise the Petitioner in the year 2001 as a full timer with effect from 1983-84 and to impose a fine on the college. The college submitted that this would place an unbearable burden on it and that there was no justification to do so in the absence of any default on the part of the College. In view of this grievance of the College, the University appointed a Committee which, as already noted earlier, submitted its report on 28th September, 2002. The Committee gave cogent reasons for declining to accede to the contention of the Petitioner that he has been continuously working as a full timer right from 1984. The Committee heard the Petitoner and the College and has arrived at a finding after considering all the material before it. In these circumstances, we do not find that there is any merit in the wider submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner to the effect that he was entitled to be appointed as a full-time Lecturer with effect from the Academic Year 1984-85.

21. We are, however, of the view that the alternate submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner has to be accepted and the Petitioner is entitled to the conferment of the status of a full-time Lecturer with effect from June, 1999. At the outset, it would be worth-while to reiterate that this was in fact, the plea of the First Respondent College. The plea found favour with the two member Committee appointed by the University. The basis on which the Committee acceded to the suggestion was that with effect from June, 1999, there was a sufficient workload of twelve teaching periods available to justify the appointment of the Petitioner on a full-time basis. The only reason which has weighed with the University in not accepting the recommendation of the Committee is the alleged ground that the Petitioner does not fulfil the required qualifications. Now, if regard be had to the relevant Government Resolution dated 31st January, 1983, it would be apparent that the State Government had, in view of the revised qualifications prescribed by the U.G.C. and accepted by the Government of India, laid down qualifications for appointment of teaching faculty of various grades. In so far as College Lecturers were concerned, the relevant conditions provided as follows:

" College Lecturers:

(a) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Master's degree in relevant subject from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign University; and

(b) An M.Phil degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work.

Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his published work is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in (a) above.

Provided further that, if a candidate possessing the qualifications as at (b) above is not available or not considered suitable, the college on the recommendation of the Select Committee may appoint a person possessing a consistently good academic record on the condition that he will have to obtain an M.Phil degree or a recognised degree beyond the Master's level within eight years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments till be obtains that degree or gives evidence of equivalent published work of high standard."

What was thus required was that the Lecturer must possess a good academic record with at least a second class at the Master's degree level and an M.Phil. In so far as the M.Phil is concerned, what was laid down was that if a candidate with the required qualification is not available, the Selection Committee may appoint a person having a consistently good academic record no the condition that he will have to obtain an M. Phil degree within eight years of his appointment. If a candidate thereafter fails to obtain the M.Phil, he would not be given future increments. In the present case, the Petitioner who had a B.A. and M.A. degree admittedly acquire the M.Phil on 27th January, 1986. On 13th July, 1985, the College had appointed the Petitioner as a temporary full timer subject to his (SIC) M.Phil within a period of six months. That the Petitioner has acquired the M.Phil in January, 1986 is not in dispute. In fact thereafter, in June, 1986, the Selection Committee recommended the appointment of the Petitoner though on a part-time basis. The Selection Committee found that the Petitioner met the required qualifications. That being the position, it would be now too late in the day to hold, as the University seems to have done on 30th October, 2002 that the Petitioner does not meet the required qualifications. The U.G.C. has in October, 1991, laid down revised qualifications and in so far as a Lecturer in Law is concerned, what is required is a good academic record with at least 55% marks at the Master's degree level. Besides, candidates are now required to clear the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by the U.G.C. In the present case, the Court will have to be conscious of the fact that this was not a fresh appointment of a Lecturer that was sought to be made for the first time after the laying down of the revised qualifications on 28th October, 1991. The Petitioner was initially appointed, though on a clock hour basis, in 1983 and thereafter, his appointment was continued on different dates either as a part timer or as a full-time Lecturer albeit on a temporary basis. The Petitioner had been representing his case, contending that there was sufficient workload available to him so as to enable the Petitioner to be treated as a full-time employee. In June, 1986, the Petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee which recommended his case for appointment as a part-time employee. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that in a case such as the present, where the Petitioner has a B.A. Degree, has successfully thereafter completed the Master's degree and possesses an M.Phil as required by the G.R. dated 31st January, 1983 issued by the State Government in implementation of the qualifications which were then prescribed by the U.G.C., it would be palpably arbitrary on the part of the University to reject his approval on the ground that the Petitioner was not qualified. That being the only objection which has been entertained by the University, we are of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief of being recognised as a full-time Lecturer with effect from June, 1999. That was the recommendation which was made to the University by the Committee appointed by the Management Council. The University was not justified in rejecting that recommendation. No cogent reason has been urged before us on behalf of the University for ignoring the recommendations of the Committee.

22. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Petition should be allowed in part. The Writ Petition will accordingly stand disposed of with the direction that the Pethidine shall be entitled to the benefit of being regarded as a full-time Lecturer in Political Science in the First Respondent College with effect from June, 1999. The Petitioner will be entitled to his past arrear of salary and consequential benefits with effect from the said date. Since the Court is informed by Counsel that the First Respondent is an aided institution, it would be open to the First Respondent to move the Fourth Respondent for the release of the arrears of salary which are due and payable to the Petitioner with effect from June, 1999. The First Respondent shall move the Fourth Respondent expeditiously and within a period of two weeks from today. The Fourth Respondent shall take necessary steps to implement the order of the Court within a period of eight weeks thereafter, and pass necessary orders after considering the matter in accordance with law. The Resolution of the the Management Concil dated 30th October, 200 is accordingly quashed and set aide.

23. The Petition shall stand allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.