Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2023
Page 1 of 40
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 19-10-2022
Delivered on 6-1-2023
WPS No. 8375 of 2018
1. Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri Baldau Prasad Shukla
Aged About 55 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Geology In Govt. Kakitiya Pg College Jagdalpur ,r/o
Rajgurubada ,vijyward No. 2 Jagdalpur District Bastar
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Amitanshu Shekhar Jha S/o Shri B.L. Jha Aged About 51 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Geology In Govt.
Kakitiya Pg College Jagdalpur ,r/o Rajgurubada ,vijyward No. 2
Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
3. Dr. Vijay Kuamar Sharma S/o Late Shri Jiwdhan Prasad Sharma
Aged About 55 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Commerce In Govt.M.M.R.P.G. College Champa ,r/o Opp.Hotel
Green Park ,akaltara Road District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.,
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4. Dr. (Ms) Jyoti Mishra D/o Shri Onkar Nath Mishra Aged About 53
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English In Dr.
Radhabai Govt. Naveen Girls College Raipur ,r/o Quarter No.
214 ,samta Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5. Sr. (Smt.) Suneeta Patra , W/o Dr. P. K.Patra Aged About 51 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Botany In
Govt.Nagarjun Pg Science College Raipur ,r/o Professor
Colony ,sector -1 ,street No. 4 ,house No. 226 Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Dr. Aditya Narayan Singh S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Thakur Aged
About 51 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Commerce In Govt.Bilasa Girls P.G. College Bilaspur ,r/o B-
8 ,chinar ,green Garden Mungeli Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7. Dr. Vivek M. Dandekar S/o Late Shri M.T. Dandekar Aged About 52
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Commerce In
Govt.Mmr P.G. College Champa ,r/o Annapurna Niwas Tilak Nagar
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8. Dr. Laxmikant Bharati S/o Shri S.R. Bharati Aged About 57 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Economic In
Govt.V.Y.T. Autonomous ,p.G. College Durg R/o Quarter No. F-
2/01,five Building ,Mohan Nagar Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
Page 2 of 40
9. Dr. (Smt.)shankuntla Tripathi W/o Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi Aged
About 60 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Geography In V.A.B. Govt. College Chhuikhadan Rajannadgaon R/
o Brahmanpara ,ward No.6 Chhuikhandan District Rajnangaon
Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
10. Dr. (Smt.) Kavita Das W/o Shri Ravindra Jataria Aged About 48
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Zoology In
Govt.Ngarjuna Pg College Of Science Raipur R/o Near R.S.U.
Colony Behind Science College Hostel No. 3,raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
11. Dr. K.R. Hari S/o Shri K.N. Raghavan Nair Aged About 55 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Pt. Ravishankar Shukla
Univercity Raipur R/o C-3/404 ,wood -I- Land Flat ,near
Mahadev ,ghat Amleshwar ,durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
12. Dr. Sharad Chandra Mishra S/o Shri R.N. Mishra Aged About 57
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Sociology In
Govt.College Dhamdha , Durg R/o Shivam Newas ,near Chhota
Shiv Mandir ,subhash Nagar Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
13. Dr. Venu Gopal S/o Shri R. Sadasivan Aged About 58 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Economics At Present
Assistant Director ,state Project Office ,Rusa ,govt. Science
College Campus Raipur R/o Navchetan House No. 22 ,beside
Shahnai Garden Near Smart Classes, Rohinipuram Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
14. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari S/o Late Shri L.L. Tiwari Aged About 55 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Electronic In School Of
Studies And Photonics In Pandit Ravishankar Shukla
Univercity ,raipur R/o Pq 5, Goverment Science College Campus
Ge Road Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
15. Dr. (Mrs) Kalpana Lambey W/o Shri Rajesh Lambey Aged About
54 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Geography In
Govt.D.B. Girls P.G. College Raipur R/o 30/146 Yograj Hanuman
Mandir Gali Tatyapara Raipur Chhatisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
16. Dr. (Smt)sunita Jha W/o Shri C.M. Jha Aged About 55 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English In Govt.Naveen
College Khursipar Bhilai R/o A-103 ,street No. 1 Vidyavihar ,nehru
Nagar (West) Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
17. Akhilesh Jadhav S/o Shri Muralimanohar Jadhav Aged About 55
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Phusics In
Govt.Jy Chhattisgarh College Raipur R/o C-48 Sai ,kripa Near
Harsh Tower ,deopuri Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
Page 3 of 40
18. Dr. Harsh Sharma S/o Late Shri Saral Kumar Sharma Aged About
57 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English In
Govt.Npg College Of Science Raipur R/o -52 Vivekanand Nagar
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
19. Dr. Smt. Purnima Mishra W/o Shri Shailesh Kuamar Mishra Aged
About 54 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Economics In Govt.Jy Chhattisgarh College Raipur R/o C-
1 ,56/7 ,sector 7, In Front Of Kushabhau Thakre Apartment No.
3 ,new Rajendra Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
20. Dr. Smt. Sunayana Mishra D/o Late Maj. M.P. Mishra Aged About
57 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English In
Govt. N. P.G. College Of Science Raipur R/o 17/901 Gurugovind
Nagar ,opposite New Bus Stand Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
21. Dr. Shailendra Kuamar Singh S/o Dr. Himmat Singh Aged About 54
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In History In
Govt.Digvijay College Rajanandgaon R/o Quarter No. 7 Digvijay
College Campus Rajannadgoan Chhattisgarh., District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
22. Dr. Sakharam Kanjam S/o Shri Sonau Ram Kunjam Aged About 54
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Geography In
Govt. Swamivivekanand P.G. College Narayanpur ,r/o R.E.Colony
Quarter G 5 District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh., District :
Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
23. Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri R.K. Mishra Aged About 55
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Geography In
Govt.Digvijay P.G. College Rajnandgaon R/o
15 ,kanhapark ,vivekanand Nagar Kohka Bhilai District Durg
Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
24. Dr. (Mrs) Kiran Nuruti W/o Shri Aasha Ram Nuruti , Aged About 54
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Sociology In
Govt.Gundadhur College Kondagaon R/o Near
Chavra,school ,main Road Kondagaon District Bastar
Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
25. Dr. (Smt.)saroj Sharma W/o Shri V.K. Sharma Aged About 53
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Hindi In
Govt.Navin Girls College Jajgir R/o Opposite Hotel Green
Park ,akaltar Road Janjgir District Janjgirchamapa Chhattisgarh,
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
26. Dr. (Mrs) Shilpi Bose W/o Shri A.K. Bose , Aged About 49 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Public Administration In
Govt.Jy Chhattisgarh Pg College Raipur R/o A-5 ,palash Corner
Basant Vihar ,mahaveer Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
27. Smt. Ritu Sinha W/o Dr. Prabodh Kumar Sinha Aged About 55
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Economics In
Page 4 of 40
Govt.Ev Pg College Korba R/o Nc 66 ,cseb Colony Korba (East )
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
28. Dr. Shekhar Kumar Sinha W/o Late Shri S.N. Sinha Aged About 58
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Chemistry In
Rajiv Gandhi Government Pg College Ambikaur R/o Professor
Colony Quarter No. 1,banaras Road Ambikapur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
29. Smt. Hafza Khalid Wd/o Late Dr. Mohammad Khalid Ali Aged
About 58 Years Occupation Nill R/o Staff Quarter Government
Bilasa Girls Pg College Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
30. Dr. Vidyacharan Shikla S/o Dr. Uma Shankar Shukla Aged About
53 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Sociology In
Govt.Sant Gahira Guru Rameshwar College Lailunga Raigarh R/o
Narmad Nagar Behind Bachpan School Vidya Bhawan Mangle
Chowk Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
31. Dr. Prabhu Kumar Sinha S/o Late Shri Jammu Prasad Bithwar
Aged About 55 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Economics In Govt.Minimata Girls College Korba R/o Nc 66 Cseb
Colony Korba (East) District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
32. Dr. (Mrs) Namrata Sharma W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma Aged
About 52 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Geography In Govt.Minimata Girls College Korba R/o B-56 ,new B
Type Quarter Htps Colony Korba (West) District Korba
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
33. Dr. (Ms)neeta Gupta D/o Late Shri M.L.Gupta Aged About 50
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Chemistry In
Govt.E. Raghvendra Rao Pg. Sceince College Bilaspur R./o
Behind Congress Bhawan Tilak Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
34. Dr. (Ms) Shraddha Dubey D/o Shri Ram Narayan Shukla Aged
About 51 Years W/o Shri Satish Kumar Dubey Occupation Service
Assistant Professor In English In Govt.Mahamaya College
Ratanpur Bilaspur R/o Sarangali ,ahead Krishana Vihar Vidya
Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
35. Dr. (Mrs) Seema Manisha Nath W/o Shri Alok Sanjay Nath Aged
About 53 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English
In Govt.Jmp College Takhatpur Billaspur R/o Rajendra Nagar ,link
Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
36. Dr. Rajeev Sharma S/o Shri M.L. Sharma Aged About 53 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In History In Govt.Jmp
College Takhatpur Bilaspur R/o College Road ,ward No. 12
Takhatpur Post Takhapur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
37. Dr. (Mrs) Seema Negi W/o Shri Devendra Singh Negi Aged About
57 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Chemistry In
Page 5 of 40
Govt.Jmp College Takhatpur District Bilaspur, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
38. Dr K. Anand Kowashik S/o Shri S. Kailasam Aged About 53 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Economics In
Govt.Mahamaya College Ratanpur R/o A/206 ,ravi Height
Kumharpara Jarhabhata Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
39. Dr.(Ms) Manju Madhuri Bajpai D/o Late Shri A.M.Bajpai Aged
About 49 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Political
Science In Govt.Bilasa Girls Pg College Bilaspur R/o B-20
Pragativihar Bahatarai Road Seepat Marg Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
40. Dr. (Mrs)paramjeet Pandey W/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Pandey
Aged About 56 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Hindi In T.C.L Govt.College Jajngir R/o Hig 08 ,ring Road No.2,
Mahima Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
41. Mahfooz Arif S/o Shri S.U. Ansari Aged About 21 Years Occupation
Service Assistant Professor In Giology In Govt.E Raghvendra Rao
P.G. Science Collage Bilaspur R/o 45-A Phase 1,rk Nagar Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
42. Dr. Durba Chatterjee W/o Dr. Anup Chatterjee Aged About 55
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Geography In
Govt.Agrasen College Bilha Bilaspur R/o R -7 ,binoda Nagar
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
43. Dr. (Mrs) Susan Udai W/o Dr. Udai Nath Aged About 55 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English Govt.Bilasa
Girls Pg Collaege Bilaspur R/o B-4, 25 Bunglows Colony Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
44. Dr. (Smt. ) Harini Rani Augur W/o Dr. M.R. Agur Aged About 54
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Hindi In
Govt.Bilasa Girls Pg College Bilaspur R/o A-03 ,om
Zone ,shubham Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
45. Dr. (Mrs) Dhaneshwari Dubey W/o Dr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey
Aged About 51 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Hindi In Govt.Ev Pg College Korba R/o Mig ,1/85 Mp Nagar
Extence District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
46. Dr. (Smt) Kalyani Jain W/o Shri Sharad Kumar Jain Aged About 53
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Hindi In
Govt.Rewati Raman Mishra College Surajpur R/o Mig 29 ,sharad
Sadan Nehru Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
47. Dr. (Smt) Sunita Tyagi W/o Shri Adesh Kumar Tyagi Aged About
56 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Hindi In Govt.
Mm Girls College Balodabazar R/o High School Road Baloda
Page 6 of 40
Bazar ,balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-
Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
48. Dr (Ms) Uttara Tiwari D/p Shri H.P. Tewari Aged About 53 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Botany In The Govt.E
Raghvendra Pg Science College Bilaspur R/o Keshar Awas
No.5,senior M.J.G. Raj Kishore Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
49. Dr Deosharan Mishra S/o Late Shri S.K. Mishra Aged About 59
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English In
Govt.J.P. Verma P.G. Arts And Commerce College Bilaspur R/o
Primary School Road Torwapara Near Santoshi Mandir Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
50. Dr (Mrs) Sangeeta Shukla W/o Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla Aged
About 51 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Geography In Govt.Pg Bilasa Girls College Bilaspur R/o B-18 ,sai
Homes Vidya Nagar Near Shiv Mandir Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
51. Dr. Jaiparakash Dubey S/o Late Shri K.L. Dubey Aged About 56
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Commerce In
Govt.Bilas Girls Pg College Bilaspur R/o A- 161 ,agyeya
Nagar ,bilsapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
52. Smt. Priti Gupta W/o Shri A.C. Gupta Aged About 52 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Commerce In Govt.R.P.
Singh Dev P.G. College Baikunthpur R/o Juna Para Near Korea
Palace Baikunthpur Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
53. Dr. Alok Shukla S/ Prof. Ram Narayan Shukla Aged About 58
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Hindi In
Govt.College Gobra Navapara R/o Hig 29 ,sector 01, Deendayal
Upadhyay Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
54. Smt. Archana Pandey W/o Shri Amalendra Kumar Pandey Aged
About 54 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Sociology In Govt.D.T.P.G. College Uttai Durg R/o Quarter No. 5-A
,street And Sector 10 Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
Goverment D.T.College Uattai Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
55. Dr. (Smt)babita Dubey W/o Shri K.R. Pandey Aged About 50 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Homescience In
Govt.Girls College Durg R/o Mig 13, Mukund Nagar Durg
Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
56. Dr Rita Gupta W/o Shri M.S. Gupta Aged About 52 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Hindi In Govt.D.T.
College Uttai Durg R/o House No. 4/6 Nehru Nagar West
Bhilai ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
Page 7 of 40
57. Dr. Moniya Rakesh Singh W/o Shri Rakesh Singh Aged About 53
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Sociology In
Govt.Girls P.G. College Durg R/o House No 8a ,street No.
12,sector 1, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
58. Dr. (Smt)m.L. Prasuna W/o M Venkateshwara Rao Aged About 54
Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Botany In
Govt.Dr, W.W.P. Girls P.G. College Durg ,r/o Quarter No. 4 B
Street No. 11 ,sector 10 ,bhilai Tehsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
59. Dr. Arti Diwan W/o Kailash Dhar Diwan Aged About 55 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Home Science In
I.G.Govt.College Vaishali Nagar Bhilai R/o House No. Rose
132,street 3,talpuri ,bhilai Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
60. Dr. S.K. Bohre S/o Late Shri G.P.Bhore Aged About 59 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Mathematics At I.G.
Govt. College Vaishali Nagar Bhilai R/o Ritz 04 Ganpativihun Potia
Road ,borsi Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
61. Dhan Singh Sahare S/o Shri J.L. Sahare Aged About 56 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Socioology In
Govt.Shahid Kaushal Yadav College Gunderdehi R/o Sahara
Niwas ,plot No. 40/2,ward No. 21,shiwajee,nagar ,tehsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
62. Rajneesh Kant Tiwari S/o Dr.D.K. Tiwari Aged About 54 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In Engilsh In Govt.College
Arjunda Balod R/o Near Water Tank Minakshi Nagar ,tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
63. Dr. Nigar Ahmed W/o Shri Nizam Ahmed Aged About 54 Years
Occupation Service Assistant Professor In English In Govt.Shahid
Kaushal Yadav College Gunderdehi Balod R/o S 8 ,padmanabhpur
,durg ,near Community Hall ,cross Road 1, Sector B, Tehsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
64. Dr. (Smt.) Rekha Sharma (Shukla) W/o Shri Jagannath Sharma
Aged About 55 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Hindi In Govt.College Sargaon ,district Mungeli R/o Ganga Nagar
Sector 2, Mangla Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
65. Smt. Archana Garhwal W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Garhwal Aged
About 53 Years Occupation Service Assistant Professor In
Geography In Govt.Mahamaya College Ratanpur Bilaspur R/o
Jabda Road ,sarkanda Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
Page 8 of 40
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Additional Secretary, Government Of
Chhattisgarh, Department Of Higher Education Mahanadi
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Saroj Uike Additional Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh,
Department Of Higher Education Mahanadi Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Principal Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh
Department Of General Administration, Secretariat, Mahanadi
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. The Principal Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh
Department Of Finance, Secretariat Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5. The Commissioner Department Of Higher Education, Government
Of Chhattisgarh, Block-3, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District -
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. The Regional Additional Director Of Higher Education Government
Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Division, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7. The Regional Additional Director Of Higher Education Government
Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8. The Regional Additional Director Of Higher Education Government
Of Chhattisgarh, Jagdalpur Division, District - Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
9. The University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New
Delhi - 110002 Through Its Secretary., District : New Delhi, Delhi
---- Respondents
and
WPS No. 9830 of 2019
1. Dr. Alpana Dubey W/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Dubey Aged About 54
Years Assistant Professor Commerce In Dr. K.C.B. Govt. P.G.
College , Bhilai Iti , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
2. Dr. Anita Dixit W/o Shri Sanjay Dixit Aged About 53 Years Assistant
Professor Arthshastra In Govt. I.B. Women's College , Raipur
Chhattigarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Dr. Neeru Agrawal W/o Shrihant Agrawal Aged About 55 Years
Assistant Professor Zoology In Govt. V.Y.T. Autonomous College,
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Dr. Meena Maan W/o Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Maan Aged About 54
Years Assistant Professor English In Govt. V.Y.T.Pg. Autonomous
College , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
5. Dr. Tarlochan Kaur Sandhu W/o Shri Jagdeep Singh Sandhu
Assistant Professor English In Govt. V.N.T. Pg Autonomous
College District Durg Chhattisgarh.
6. Dr. Joyti Dharkar W/o Shri Rajesh Dharkar Aged About 54 Years
Assistant Professor History In Govt. V.Y.T. Pg Autonomous
College District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
7. Dr. Sarita Dubey W/o Dr. V.K. Dubey Aged About 59 Years
Assistant Professor History In D.B. Pg , Women's College District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
8. Dr. Premlata Tiwari W/o Shri Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 52 Years
Assistant Professor Political Science In Govt, D.B.Pg Women's
College District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
9. Dr. Sunita Mishra Diwedi W/o Shri M.D. Mishra Aged About 55
Years Assistant Professor Political Science In Govt. Naveen
College , Khursipaar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
10. Dr Lata Meshram W/o J.P. Meshram Aged About 56 Years
Assistant Professor Zoology In Govt. Dr. W.W. Patankar College
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
11. Dr. Manoj Shukla S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla Aged About 54
Years Assistant Professor History In Govt. Sanskrit College ,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
12. Dr. Toynidhi Vaishnav S/o Shri Ramsharan Vaishnav Aged About
64 Years Assistant Professor Vyakaran , Govt. Sanskrit College ,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary To The Government
Of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Department Of Higher Education
Mahanadi Mantralaya , Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Smt Saroj Uike Additional Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh ,
Department Of Higher Education , Mahanadi Mantralaya Nava
Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. The Principal Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh ,
Department Of General Administration , Secretariat Mahanadi
Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. The Principal Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh,
Department Of General Finance, Secretariat Mahanadi Mantralaya,
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. The Commissioner Department Of Higher Education , Government
Of Chhattisgarh , Block 3 Indrwati Bhawan , Nava Raipur Atal
Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. The Regional Additional Director Of Higher Education Government
Of Chhattisgarh , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
7. The Regional Additional Director Of Higher Education Government
Of Chhattisgarh Durg Division District Durg Chhattisgarh., District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
8. The University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg ,
New Delhi - 110002 Through Its Secretary., District : New Delhi,
Delhi
---- Respondents
For petitioners in WPS : Mr. L.C. Patne and Mr. Pranjal Agrawal,
No. 8375/2018 Advocates.
For petitioners in WPS : Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate.
No. 9830/2019
For State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. As identical issues and facts of law are involved in both these writ
petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by
this common order.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 27-11-2018
(Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No.2 Additional Secretary,
Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Higher Education by
which the representation of the petitioners for grant of Senior Grade
Pay Scale of Rs.3000-5000/- (revised to Rs.10,000/- - 15,200/- and
Selection Grade Pay scale of Rs.3700-5700/- (revised to
Rs.12,000/- - 18,300) by counting their services from the date of
their emergency appointment has been rejected. The said
representation was made in pursuance of the direction given by this
Court in WPS No. 2343 of 2017 wherein this court vide its order
26.04.2018 has directed the respondents/State to consider and
decide the representation.
3. The facts, in brief, as reflected from the records of the case are that
the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Higher
Education issued an advertisement in the years 1986, 1987 and
1989 inviting applications from eligible candidates for their
appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in different subject
on emergency basis vide Annexure P/2. The appointment and
promotion of Assistant Professors as well as the teaching faculty
members in the government colleges are governed by Madhya
Pradesh Educational Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment
Rules, 1967 (for short "the Rules, 1967"). The Rule 13 (5) of the
Rules, 1967 provides emergency appointment. The Rule 13 (5)
reads as under:-
"13(5) Emergency appointments- If Commission panel of selected
candidate is not available, the posts may be filled by emergency
appointments in the following manners-
(a) an advertisement shall be issued by Government-
(b) Application for emergency appointment shall be submitted in the
form prescribed in Schedule-V.
(c) Application received shall be registered and tabulated according
to the following criteria:-
Category Qualification
(1) (Division in M.A./M.Sc./M.Com)
A (i) I plus Ph.D. plus experience of teaching for at least 6
months in a Government of M.P.
(ii) I plus Ph.D.
B (i) II plus Ph.D. plus experience of teaching for at least 6
months in a Govt. College in M.P.
(ii) II plus Ph.D.
C (i) I plus experience of teaching for at least 6 months in a
Govt. College of M.P.
(ii) I
D (i) II plus experience of teaching for at least 6 months in
a Govt. College of M.P.
(ii) II
The names will be arranged in each sub-category according to the
marks secured by the candidates at the M.A./M.Sc./M.Com.
Examination.
Provided if and when Public Services Commission panel for these
subjects is available, these teachers will be liable to be removed
without notice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners
were appointed as emergency appointees after following due
process by publishing advertisement in widely circulated newspaper
as also following the reservation rules, whichever applicable at the
relevant time. He would further submit that the advertisements were
issued for appointment in the regular pay scale of Rs.700-1600/-
which was subsequently revised to Rs.2200 - 4000/-) along with
admissible allowances. The qualification prescribed in the
advertisement is the same which is required for regular appointment
through Public Service Commission. He would further submit that a
selection committee was constituted and merit list of the candidates
concerned depending upon their academic performance from the
state of graduation till doctorate level was considered while
recommending for selection of the petitioners on the post of
Assistant Professor. Thus, there is a complete compliance of Rule
13(5) of the Rules, 1967. Thereafter Recruitment Rules 1967 were
replaced by new Recruitment Rules framed by the State of MP viz.,
Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch)
Recruitment Rules 1990 (for short "the Rules, 1990"). He would
further submit that as per Rule 17 of the Rules 1990, which provides
the conditions of eligibility for promotion/transfer. As per the Rules,
the Committee has to consider the case of all persons on the first
day of January of that year who had completed such number of
years of service whether officiating or substantive in the posts from
which the promotion is to be made as specified in column 3 for
schedule-IV. Thus, the services of the petitioners as emergency
appointees also deserve to be counted while considering the case
for promotion. As such, their service before regularization as
emergency appointee deserves to be counted for grant of higher
pay scale.
5. Learned counsel the petitioners would further submit that Rules of
1967 were adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh in view of Section
79 of the Reorganization Act, 2000. He would further submit that the
word 'emergency' basis of their initial appointment is nothing but a
misnomer inasmuch as all the attributes of a regular appointment
was present in their appointment as emergency appointee. The
appointment of the petitioners was made after following a due
process of selection and their appointment orders were issued in the
name of Governor of Madhya Pradesh by the competent authority
who was competent to make an appointment on the basis of Asst.
Professors. He would submit that the petitioners for all practical
purposes were treated as regular employees as the erstwhile State
of Madhya Pradesh has issued order dated 28-2-1989 granting
annual increment to all the emergency appointed candidates in the
year 1986-87, subject to condition that the candidates have
completed one year continuation service, accordingly they have
been granted increment also. It has been further contended that not
only this, in all other ancillary matters governing the terms and
conditions of their service such as, grant of leave, pension, gratuity,
GPF etc., the petitioners were treated like regular employees and
have been given benefit like regular employees and their service
book is also maintained right from initial stage of appointment.
6. It has been further contended that after appointment of the
petitioners on emergency basis, the Government of Madhya
Pradesh has conducted Public Service Commission Examination for
appointment on the post of Assistant Professors. Some of
emergency appointed Assistant Professors have cleared the Public
Service Commission examination and the petitioners could not clear
the examination, as such, there are two types of Assistant
Professors working in the collegiate branch. The candidates who
have cleared their PSC were given seniority from the dates they
have cleared PSC and those who had not cleared public service
commission examination at the first available opportunity for any
reason whatsoever, their services were continued on account of
non-availability of sufficient suitable candidates after selection by the
Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and they were allowed
to continue in the service as their services were very much required.
The candidates who have not cleared PSC Examination have filed
original application before the Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
wherein certain directions were issued. The State of Madhya
Pradesh has challenged the said order before Hon'ble Supreme
Court by filing SLP which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 23292-
2333/1992, decided on 28-4-1992 (State of Madhya Pradesh and
others vs. Aravind Kumar and others) wherein Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has passed the following orders:-
"In this batch of appeals by the State of Madhya Pradesh,
a Memorandum of Understanding singed by Shri S.N.
Dhruva, Deputy Secretary, Government of Madhya
Pradesh, Department of Higher Education, Bhopal, has
been placed before us. This is as a result of some
deliberations which took place on the last date of hearing.
The memorandum is as follows:-
"1. That a total No. of 1366 emergency appointments
were made during the year 1986 to 1989. Appointees
were required to present themselves before P.S.C. on
first available opportunity as per condition of appointment
as also the Recruitment Rules of the Deptt. The P.S.C.
advertisement prescribed maximum age limit of 39 years
for emergency appointees as against 31 years.
2. 82 such emergency appointees were not eligible
because of the subsequent amendment in requirement of
50% marks at Graduation level, but out of these 27
persons appeared by virtue of order dated 27.11.90
passed by S.A.T.
3. The remaining candidates out of the ineligible 82
appointees would be dealt with under Special
dispensation as the Supreme Court may order, so that
their interest are not adversely affected.
4. Those candidates who have appeared in the P.S.C.
examination but withdrawn their candidature (are about
850) subsequently pursuant to the order of the SAT
would be allowed to appear in the PSC, if they are
declared successful in the written test.
5. Those emergency appointees who were eligible under
the rules and still did not choose to respond to the Public
Service Commission advertisement, do not merit any
consideration. They were offered adequate opportunity to
participate in the selection process. They having decided
not to offer themselves as candidates, the Govt. does not
consider it proper to force them into this. If, however, this
Hon'ble Court directs otherwise the State Government
will comply with the directions of this Hon'ble Court.
We have discussed this matter further with learned
counsel on both sides. Some clarification and
amendments are required. Paragraphs 2 and 3 would
require the first clarification. The 27 persons, who are
referred to in paragraph 2, who had appeared in the
written test by virtue of order dated 27.11.90 passed by
the State Administrative Tribunal, would now be treated
as ineligible and their results would not be declared. They
would form back as part of the 82 who were ineligible and
would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in para 3. The
second clarification/ amendment is with regard to
paragraph 5 inasmuch as the Special dispensation would
be open not only to 82 appointees afore-referred to but
also to other similarly situated appointees who had
chosen not to respond to the advertisement of the Public
Service Commission thinking that they were ineligible.
Thus the Special dispensation would be open to all. The
third and the last clarification is required in paragraph 4,
inasmuch as candidates numbering about 850, who are
eligible but have pursuant to the orders of the State
Administrative Tribunal, subsequently made applications
to withdraw their candidature, would now not be allowed
to withdraw, and if they are declared successful in the
written test, they would be called for interview.
The terms of the Memorandum as clarified/ amend are
acceptable to the Respondents through their learned
counsel. Therefore, in order to give it proper legal effect,
we grant special leave in all these cases and allow the
appeals by substituting the above final Understanding as
order in place of the order passed by the Tribunal.
If in future the Government chooses to regularize the
service of the left-outs who have to be dealt with by the
special dispensation, this order shall not stand in their
way. The special dispensation is clearly understood
between the parties to include: (a) relaxation of age; (b)
relaxation in the percentage of marks at the graduate
level, and (c) quick settlement of the issue to obviate
hardship. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. The General Administration Department of the State of Madhya
Pradesh sought clarification from the Madhya Pradesh Public
Service Commission to regularize the services of (b) category
Assistant Professors ie., who could not clear PSC at first instance
for any reason and in response to said letter the Public Service
Commission vide its letter dated 12-5-1997 (Annexure P/8) has
given no objection to exclude 660 posts of emergency appointed
Assistant Professors from purview of the Public Service
Commission. The Public Service Commission has also given no
objection if the State Government in pursuance of direction of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court regularizes the services of these
emergency appointed Assistant Professors. Thereafter, the State of
Madhya Pradesh took policy decision on 21-8-1998 to appoint the
SC/ST/OBC Assistant Professors who were appointed on
emergency basis in the education department on the condition that
they fulfilled the requirement and at the time of initial appointment
they were within upper limit. In pursuance of that decision, the State
of Madhya Pradesh has appointed the emergency appointed
Assistant Professors candidates who belong to SC/ST/OBC on
24.12.1998.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that after
implementation of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, the
petitioners became employees of the State of Chhattisgarh by virtue
of provisions of Section 68 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization
Act, 2000. It is further contended that in view of the provisions of
Section 69 of the Act, 2000, the service conditions conferred by
Recruitment Rules 1990, shall be applicable to the petitioners. It is
further contended that the services of the petitioners were
regularized by the respondents/State by issuing orders dated 18-1-
2006 (Annexure P/12) and dated 14-6-2007 (Annexure P/13) with
effect from 24-12-1998, initially on a probation period of two years.
However, considering the statutory status of the petitioners ie.,
regular member of educational service (collegiate branch), the
condition of probation of 2 years of service was deleted vide order
dated 5-2-2008 by the respondent. Thus, all the petitioners
became regular members of service by virtue of Recruitment Rules
1967 and Recruitment Rules 1990 with effect from their initial
appointment on emergency basis. It is further submitted that the
legal effect of the approval granted by the Madhya Pradesh Public
Service Commission in the year 1997 on the post of Assistant
Professor and consequent action of issuance of unwarranted order
of regularization of their services by the respondents in the garb of
Chhattisgarh Regularization of Emergency Appointment Rules,
2005 (for short "the Rules, 2005") shall relate back to the dates of
their initial appointment on emergency basis in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Doval and
others vs. Chief Secretary, Government of UP and others,
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 329.
9. He would further submit that the Government of Madhya Pradesh
has revised the pay scale of the Assistant Professors and all the
teaching faculties in the Government colleges and university w.e.f.
01.01.1986 vide order dated 3-11-1988 and to implement the said
pay scale, the government of Madhya Pradesh has issued circular
on 10.02.1992 (Annexure P/16) and for grant of selection grade, the
past services of Assistant Professors/Lecturers can be counted if
following four conditions are fulfilled. Circular dated 10.02.1992
reads as under:-
"e/;izns'k 'kklu]
mPp f'k{kk foHkkx]
dzekad ,Q&[email protected]@[email protected],&[email protected] Hkksiky fnukad [email protected]@92& [email protected]@92
fo"k;%& egkfo|ky;hu ,oa fo'ofo|ky;hu ¼lkekU; f'k{kk½ ds f'k{kdksa ds osrueku dh
iqujh{k.k&Li"Vhdj.kA
lanHkZ%&bl foHkkx dk vkns'k dza0 [email protected]@[email protected],&[email protected]] fnukad 14&8&[email protected]&9&90
&&&&&&
lanfHkZr vkns'k dh dafMdk&2 esa egkfo|ky;[email protected]'ofo|ky;hu f'k{kdksa dh orZeku
egkfo|ky; ,oa fo'ofo|ky; dh lsokvksa ds iwoZ fdlh vU; ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk esa dh
xbZ lerqY; lsok dks ofj"[email protected] Js.kh osrueku gsrq tksM+us ds laca/k esa Hkkjr ljdkj
ls vkns'k izkIr gksus rd bu lsokvksa dks ofj"[email protected] Js.kh osrueku esa fu/kkZj.k gsrq u
tksM+us ds vkns'k fn;s x;s FksA
[email protected] vc ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj ,oa fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku
vk;sx ls izkIr iqujhf{kr ekxZn'khZ fl)karksa ds vuqlkj egkfo|ky;ksa ,oa fo'ofo|ky;ksa esa
O;k[;[email protected];d izk/;kid in ij dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa dh iwoZ esa fdlh vU;
fo'ofo|ky; [email protected] egkfo|yk;k esa O;k[;[email protected] lgk;d izk/;kid ;k led{k
in ij ¼fcuk fdlh czsd ds½ dh xbZ lsok,a] fdlh fo'ofo|ky;@ egkfo|ky;] jk"Vªh;
iz;ksx'[email protected]; oSKkfud laxBu ¼lh-,l-vkbZ-vkj-] vkbZ-lh-,-vkj-] Mh-vkj-Mh-vks] ;w-th-
lh- bR;kfn½ rFkk fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx esa 'kks/k oSKkfud ds in ij dh xbZ
lsok,a ofj"B osrueku :- 3000&5000 ,oa izoj Js.kh osrueku :- 3700&5700 esa
LFkkukiUu ds fy, tksM+h tkosaxh c'krsZ fd&
¼v½ iwoZ in O;k[;krk ds in ds led{k ,oa leku osrueku dk jgk gks]
¼c½ iwoZ in dh vgZrk,a] fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk O;k[;krk in ds fy,
fu/kkZfjr vgZrkvksa ls fuEu u gksa]
¼l½ iwoZ in ij fu;qfDr ds le; lacaf/kr O;k[;krk fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku
vk;ksx }kjk O;k[;krk ds in ij fu;qfDr dh U;ure vgZrk,a j[krk gks
¼n½ iwoZ in ij fu;qfDr fo'ofo|yk;@ jkT; 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr p;u
izfdz;k }kjk gqbZ gks]
¼b½ iwoZ in ij fu;qfDr rnFkZ :i ls ;k ,d o"kZ ls de vof/k ds fy, vodk'k
fjDr ¼yho osds'ku½ esa u dh xbZ gksA
d`i;k mijksDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosA
[email protected] ;g Lohd`fr foRr foHkkx ds i`0dz0 ,l- [email protected]&[email protected] pkj fnukad [email protected]@92
}kjk egkys[kkdkj] e-iz-] Xokfy;j dh vksj ls i`"Bkafdr dh xbZ gSA"
10. The said circular was issued in pursuance of direction issued by the
University Grants Commission on 27.11.1990 which provides for
adding of past services for the purpose of grant of senior scale/
selection grade under the carrier advancement scheme for the
lecturer, which reads as under:-
"D.O. No. F1-6/90 (PB CELL), 27 NOVEMBER 1990
Dear Sir,
Kindly refer to Para 3 of his office letter of even number
dated 29th January, 1990 containing the decision of the
Commission regarding counting the experience of a
person, before appointment as a lecturer in the
university/ college, rendered in equivalent grade in
other universities/ colleges and the national
laboratories or R & D organisations
(CSIR/ICA.R/DRDO, UGC etc.) and UGC Research
Scientist, as qualifying service for placement in the
senior scale/selection grade.
The Commission in consultation with Ministry of Human
Resource Development (Department of Education)
reconsidered the matter at its meeting held on 11th
October, 1990 and resolve revised guidelines as
follows for counting of previous service for purpose of
senior scale/selection grade under the career
advancement scheme for lecturers;
1. Previous service without any break as a lecturer or
equivalent in a university, college, national laboratory
or other scientific organisations (CSIR, ICA.R, DRDO,
UGC etc.) as a UGC Research Scientist should be
counted for placement of lecturers in Senior scale and/
Selection Grade provided that:-
a) the post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as
the post of lecturer;
b) the qualification for the post were not lower than the
qualification prescribed by UGC for the post of lecturer;
c) the lecturer concerned possessed prescribed the
minimum qualification prescribed by UGC for
appointment as lecturers;
d) the post was filled in accordance with the prescribed
selection procedure as laid down by the
university/State Government;
e) the appointment was not adhoc or in a leave
vacancy of less than one year duration.
No distinction should be made with reference to the
nature of management of the institution where previous
service was rendered (private/local body/Government)
if the above criteria are satisfied.
You are requested to bring the decision to the notice of
the colleges under your jurisdiction also.
Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the letter."
11. On the basis of these circulars, learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the petitioners' past services on emergency
appointment also deserves to be counted for grant of selection
grade. He would next submit that earlier writ petition filed in the year
2010 was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court with a
direction to respondents to take a fresh decision in the matter of
counting of past services of the petitioners for the purpose of their
placement in senior grade pay scale, selection grade pay scale and
benefit of pay band-iv taking into consideration the judgments and
orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of MP in the case of their
counterparts. He would further submit that when the order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court was not complied with, the
petitioners have approached this court by filing various contempt
cases and thereafter they have filed various writ petitions before this
Court, which were registered as WPS No. 2312/2017, WPS No.
2343/2017, WPS No. 2890/2017, wherein this court has disposed of
the petitions directing the respondent to examine each of the
petitioners upon verification of relevant facts of the petitioners and
legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court
in aforementioned cases and then pass appropriate order in respect
of each of the petitioners.
12. The State has filed their return denying the allegations made in the
writ petition, vehemently opposing the submission made by the
petitioners and would submit that Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh
Regularization of the Emergency Appointment Rules 2005 (for short
"the Rules 2005") provides that the Assistant Professors appointed
on emergency basis shall be regularized from the date of order of
regularization. Note appended to Schedule IV of Rules 1990
envisages that the placement in senior scale an Assistant Professor
has to inter alia complete certain years of service after regular
appointment only. Both the aforesaid provisions are in place, in
accordance to which almost all the petitioners have been given
placement in senior pay scale by counting their services from the
date of regularization, therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted
the relief of counting their services from the date of their initial
appointment as rules do not permit the same.
13. He would further submit that the petitioners have heavily relied upon
an executive order which stipulates that the period before
regularization can be counted for the purpose of placement again
does not come to the rescue of the petitioners in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is well established
preposition of law that no government order or notification can
substitute the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. He
would further submit that following any other course would be
disastrous. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get the
benefit from the date of their initial appointment. He would further
submit that the instant petition is clearly distinguishable from case of
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Dixit (Supra) and even the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble High Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, again does not come to their rescue in view of the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in limine
dismissal of Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving
any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a
binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. He would
further submit that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2292/2333/1992 and other connected matters would
reveal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had left it upon the
Government to take a decision about the regularization of the left
outs ie., those emergency appointees who failed to clear the PSC
examination. Thus, neither the word "emergency" is a misnomer nor
the petitioners who failed to clear the PSC examination as per the
conditions stipulated in their appointment letters/rules could have
claimed for regularization as a matter of right.
14. He would further submit that the petitioners were regularized in
accordance with law and the provisions contained in the Rules 2005
and same shall be applicable to them. He would further submit that
the judgment cited by the petitioners is distinguishable on facts and
circumstances of the case. He would further submit that in order to
facilitate placements without description of the teachers, sports
officer and librarian, a note was appended to Schedule IV of Rules
1990 by virtue of it, the same has the force of law. It is noteworthy
to mention herein that the scheme of placement is entirely different
from that of the scheme of promotion as envisaged in Rule 16 and
17 of the Rules 1990. The scheme of promotion and the scheme
of placement, thus are not repugnant to each other as has been
made out by the petitioners in the instant petition. For each
scheme, different conditionalities have been laid down as it is
evident from a bare reading in the instant case both the schemes
shall prevail. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the case of the
petitioners does not pertain to the scheme for promotion but it is for
placement. He would further submit that the impugned order dated
27-11-2018 (Annexure P/36) issued by the Department of Higher
Education is strictly as per the provisions of the Rules and therefore,
the same is legally valid and the petitioners are not entitled to get
any relief. Since the petitioners have not qualified MPPSC
Examination in the year 1992-93, as such, they shall remain juniors
to those Assistant Professors who were selected by the MPPSC
Examination in the year 1992-93 and if the demand of the
petitioners for counting of their services from the dates of their initial
appointment on emergency basis is accepted, the pay of the
petitioners shall be more than the candidates who have cleared
MPPSC examination, which is not permissible under the rules and
would pray for dismissal of the petitions.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit since Dr. Ramesh
Chandra Dixit (Supra) was affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
wherein it has been held that as the initial appointment of the
petitioners on emergency basis is itself a regular appointment for all
practical purposes being made after following a due selection
process contemplated under the Rules of 1967 itself. He would
further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already taken a
note of the fact that the petitioners failed to qualify the MPPSC
Examination in the year 1992-93 for appointment on the post of
Assistant Professors, but this could not jeopardize their claim to get
their entire length of service counted from the dates of their initial
appointment on emergency basis once their services have been
regularized. He would further submit that a conscious decision taken
by the Government itself for regularization shall relate back to the
date of their initial appointment. It has been further contended that
the finding recorded by respondent No.2 that the petitioners'
regularization will be considered as per the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Regularization of Emergency Appointment Rules 2005
and that the petitioners could not get any relief in the matter of their
seniority unless they challenged the provisions of Rules, 2005, is
incorrect grounds for rejecting their relief. It has been further
submitted that the aforesaid rules came into force in the year 2005
and whereas when this court pronounced the judgment in WPS No
1164 of 2006, the respondents have not raised the effect of
regularization Rules, 2005, therefore, they are estopped from raising
such plea.
16. He would further submit that in view of the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit
(Supra), they are entitled to count their past service. He would
further submit that the contention raised by the respondents that the
petitioners have not cleared PSC, therefore, their seniority cannot
be counted when their services were not regularized, is against the
Rule 12 of MP/CG Civil Services (General Conditions of Service)
Rules 1961, which provides that if adhoc appointment is made
following substantial procedure of recruitment and the same
continues uninterruptedly till regularization then their past service
deserves to be counted for seniority. Even as per the law of
seniority prevalent in the State of Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh, the petitioners shall always be ranked senior to those
fresh PSC selected Assistant Professors who were appointed after
appointment of the petitioners and would pray for quashing of the
impugned order dated 27-11-2018 (Annexure- P/36). He would
further submit that the respondents be directed to grant the
petitioners the benefit of senior grade, pay scale and selection
grade pay scale and benefit of Pay Band IV ie., in the placement of
pay scale by counting their services from the dates of their initial
appointment on emergency basis and re-fix the pay of the
petitioners accordingly and to release arrears thereof along with
interest @ 12% per annum.
17. Petitioner No.6-Dr. Aditya Narayan Singh, who has appeared in
person has filed copies of the orders passed by this Court in WPS
No 791 of 2015 and other connected bunch of matters, wherein this
Court has examined the case of emergency appointment and on
22-9-2015 has passed the order. The relevant portion of the order
reads as under.
"12. Indisputably, the petitioners were also appointed
in exercise of powers under Rule 13(5) of the Rules,
1967 and were similarly placed like the petitioners
before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In fact, when
the petitioners were appointed in the year 1986 to
1989 in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, they
were governed by the same set of rules. Although the
Rules of 1967 have since been replaced by the M.P./
C.G. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch)
Recruitment Rules, 1990 yet the same Rules still
apply in the State of Chhattisgarh.
13. The law having been settled in the case of
similarly appointed persons by the Single Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court, affirmed by the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal and SLP having been
dismissed by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners are also
entitled for similar relief.
14. In view of the above, all the writ petitions stand
allowed. The State Government shall consider the
case of all the petitioners/emergency appointees for
grant of Senior Pay Scale/Selection Grade Pay Scale
by treating the services rendered by them from the
initial date of appointment as regular appointment for
the purpose of conferring the benefit of Senior Pay
Scale and Selection Grade Pay Scale. Needless to
say, in view of the above order, the order impugned
cannot be given effect to by the State Government of
Chhattisgarh".
18. Against the aforesaid orders, Review Petition No. 23 of 2016 & other
connected matters were filed which were dismissed by this Court by
observing as under:-
"3. It appears, this contention was raised and
considered by this Court in para-11 of the order under
review. Moreover, the order passed by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court dealing with similarly situated
emergency appointees governed under the same set
of rules has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and
there being no error apparent on the face of record in
the order under review, this Court is not entitled to
permit the review petitioners to argue the matter
afresh once again, as held by the Supreme Court in
the matters of Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmal
Kumar Chowdhary, Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of
India and others, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of
Orissa and others, Government of T.N. & Others
Vs. M. Ananchu Ansari and Others and Kerala
State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech
Electrothermacism & Hydropower Ltd and
Others".
19. Against the aforesaid orders, bunch of writ appeals ie., Writ Appeal
No. 133 of 2017 and other connected matters have been filed
before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and considering the
entirety of materials and issues vide order dated 18-4-2017, has
passed the order, which reads as under:-
"3. The aforesaid position notwithstanding, we notice
immediately that the same issue had arisen in relation
to the persons who are now working in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. As a matter of fact, the writ
petitioners and those who are now in the State of
Madhya Pradesh were recruited in the same time
when the Chhattisgarh State was not carved out. After
the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh in the 2000,
those government servants who were available in the
Chhattisgarh area came under the Chhattisgarh
Government and those under the Madhya Pradesh
area, continued with the Madhya Pradesh
Government. Issues between those employees who
are similarly situated to the writ petitioners, but are
now part of the Madhya Pradesh service went to the
High Court in the form of a writ petition as Writ
Petition No. 807 of 2007 (Dr. Sandhya Prasad v.
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 13.07.2007.
That was decided against the State of Madhya
Pradesh. The State Government carried in writ appeal
but found it waterloo. State of Madhya Pradesh went
to the Supreme Court challenging the verdict. Their
Lordships dismissed the appeal by the State of
Madhya Pradesh through the judgment in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Satyavrata Taran, reported as
(2012) 2 SCC 83. The facts of the case in hand are
wholly similar to the facts situation dealt with by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyavrata Taran's case.
The issues raised in these writ appeals are therefore
covered squarely against the interest of the appealing
State of Chhattisgarh by the ratio decidendi of the
judgment in Satyavrata Taran (supra)"
20. Against the aforesaid orders, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1507 of 2020
was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and same was
dismissed against which review petition was also filed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 14-7-2020,
therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners are similarly situated persons, as such, they should be
given same benefit and would pray for allowing the instant writ
petitions.
21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records with utmost satisfaction.
22. From the pleadings and documents placed on record by the parties,
following point emerged for determination by this Court is whether
the appointment of petitioners who are appointed on emergency
basis, is in accordance with the rules or not and if they have been
appointed in accordance with Rules, 1967, whether their past
services have to be counted for seniority or for grant of selection
grade or for the purpose of pension or not?
23. To determine this point, this Court has to examine the Rules, 1967,
Rules, 1961 & Regularization Rules, 2005. The relevant Rules,
1967 have already been quoted in foregoing paragraph. It is well
settled position that the appointment or a temporary vacancy by
itself would not conclude the matter or lead to the irresistible
inference that the appointment was not made in a substantive
capacity.This Court in order to determine the nature of appointment,
has to look into the circumstances and substance of the matter, the
surrounding circumstances, the mode, manner and the terms and
other relevant factors leading to the appointment. It is therefore
clear that in the present case also to draw an inference with regard
to the nature of appointment, the surrounding circumstances and
the substance of the matter and all other relevant factors are to be
looked into and a conclusion is to be drawn. A conclusion cannot be
drawn merely on the basis of the contention of the State
Government that because the appointment is not made under Rule
12 of Rules of 1967, therefore, it is not a regular appointment or is
an adhoc or stop gap arrangement. All the circumstances and the
prevailing situation are to be looked into and a decision is to be
taken. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid principles that the case
in hand has to be evaluated and a decision has to be taken. By
merely holding that the appointment is adhoc appointment or a stop
gap arrangement or an emergency measure, it cannot be held that
the appointment of the petitioners is not regular appointment and,
therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit.
24. The question as to whether the appointment of the petitioners
initially on emergency basis is a regular appointment or not is to be
considered after taking note of various factors like the method
followed, the rule or regulation, if any, from which the method is
derived and various other factors. The procedure for emergency
appointment and the provision thereof is a statutory provision
contemplated under Rule 13 (5) and Rule 15 of the Rules of 1967
and the Rules of 1990 respectively. Appointment even on
emergency basis is to the service of the Collegiate Branch of the
Education Department and the recruitment even on emergency
basis is on the post available as per the Schedule to the Rules, i.e.,
a vacant post as notified in the Schedule and could not be filled up
due to nonavailability of list from the PSC. Even for appointment on
emergency basis availability of post is a pre-condition and therefore,
the incumbent is appointed on a statutory prescribed substantive
post. That apart, a regular advertisement by all modes at the
national level is published and appointment is made on the post
prescribed in the Schedule. The appointment is made by a duly
constituted committee, which follows the procedure contemplated
under the Rules for preparing a merit list. It may be taken note of
that in the Rules of 1967 and upto 31-8-1990 there was no
procedure for conducting a written examination. Selections were
made on the basis of interviews conducted by the PSC even under
Rule 12 of the Rules of 1967.
25. In the case of the present petitioners, the appointment preceded a
prescribed procedure contemplated under the statutory rules and
after they were appointed on a substantive existing vacant post,
their appointment was not as a stop gap arrangement on a
consolidated salary, but it was in the pay scale prescribed under the
statutory rules. Not only they were appointed on the pay prescribed
in the statutory rules, but the benefit of increment in accordance with
the prescribed pay scale, revision of pay scale from time to time and
all other benefits accruing to a regularly appointed incumbent under
Rule 12 was extended to the petitioners. Benefit of leave of all kinds
under the leave rules, additional increment on acquiring extra
qualification, benefit of provident fund and even posting on higher
post on officiating capacity was extended to the petitioners. It is,
therefore, a case where the petitioners for all practical purposes
were treated as regularly appointed incumbents to the service of the
department and treating them to be so appointed all service benefits
as per the Rules were extended. It is not a case, where the
petitioners were inducted into the department by any irregular
method or by adopting back door entry method or by a pick and
choose discriminatory and arbitrary system of appointment. On the
contrary, they are appointed in accordance with mode prescribed
under the statutory rules on existing substantive vacant post and all
benefit of regular appointment to the said post was extended to
them. That being so, the respondents cannot say that appointment
of the petitioners was not regular appointment. A regular
appointment as indicated in the provision under Note to the Rules of
1990 for grant of senior pay scale will not only mean a regular
appointment in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules of 1967 and
1990, but would also include an appointment in accordance with any
of the methods contemplated under the Rules. Even an emergency
appointment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13 (5) of the
Rules of 1967 and Rule 15 of the Rules of 1990 would be a regular
appointment for the purpose of grant of senior pay scale.
26. The grant of selection grade to the emergency appointed Assistant
Professors under Rules of 1967 after adding their past services, has
come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ
Appeal No. 599/2008 (decided on 11th February, 2010) in case of
State of M.P. Vs. Dr. Smt. Sandhya Prasad & others and the
circular of the State Government dated 12.12.1992 and MPPSC
D.O. Letter dated 25.12.1998, has held as under:-
"9. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned GA has relied upon
Division Bench decision of this Court in Suraj
Goswami vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) in which
petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on a fixed pay
of Rs. 700/-. Division Bench of this Court held that
fixed pay happened to be equivalent to the initial pay in
a time scale, i.e. Rs. 700/- Rs. 1600/- does not mean
that adhoc service was on a time scale. It was laid
down by Division Bench of this Court that an
incumbent is neither entitled for benefit of seniority nor
pay scale. In the instant case ratio of the aforesaid
decision is not at all attracted as seniority has not been
given in any of the order passed by the single Bench,
the benefit given is that of counting of the past services
for the purpose of placement in the Senior Scale/
Selection Grade and the said benefit is available as
per the Government circular dt. 12.2.1992. In the
aforesaid decision of Suraj Goswami vs. State of M.P.
and others (supra) the appointment was made on
adhoc basis which was not under the rules whereas
the appointment in the instant cases was under the
Rules of 1967 and ultimately incumbents have been
regularized. The appointment in the instant case was
also on the pay scale, in the aforesaid decision
appointment was on fixed pay, thus, decision is
distinguishable. Even after following the aforesaid
decision in its pith and substance, no dent is caused to
the employees of the instant case as the relief is totally
different, thus ratio of said decision is not attracted.
10. Resultantly, we find no merits in the writ appeals
by the State Government. The same are dismissed.
They are bound to count the services rendered by the
employees as emergency appointee for placement of
Senior Scale/Selection Grade. WP No. 24503/03
stands allowed. No cost."
27. The Hon'ble Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Dr.
Ramesh Chandra Dixit & others Vs. State of M.P. 1 has held at
paragraph 40 & 44 as under:-
"40. In the case of the present petitioners, therefore,
the appointment preceded a prescribed procedure
contemplated under the statutory rules and after they
were appointed on a substantive existing vacant post,
their appointment was not as a stop gap arrangement
on a consolidated salary, but it was in the pay scale
prescribed under the statutory rules. Not only were they
appointed on the pay prescribed in the statutory rules,
but the benefit of increment in accordance to the
prescribed pay scale, revision of pay scale from time to
time and all other benefits accruing to a regularly
appointed incumbent under Rule 12 was extended to
the petitioners. Benefit of leave of all kinds under the
leave rules, additional increment on acquiring extra
qualification, benefit of provident fund and even posting
on higher post on officiating capacity was extended to
the petitioners. It is, therefore, a case where the
petitioners for all practical purposes were treated as
regularly appointed incumbents to the service of the
department and treating them to be so appointed all
service benefits as per the Rules were extended. It is
not a case where the petitioners were inducted into the
department by any irregular method or by adopting
back door entry method or by a pick and choose
discriminatory and arbitrary system of appointment. On
the contrary, they are appointed in accordance to a
mode prescribed under the statutory rules on existing
substantive vacant post and all benefit of regular
1 2012 (3) M.P.H.T. 86
appointment to the said post was extended to them.
That being so, the respondents cannot say that
appointments of the petitioners were not regular. A
regular appointment as indicated in the provision under
Note to the Rules of 1990 for grant of senior pay scale
will not only mean a regular appointment in accordance
to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1967 and 1990, but would
also include an appointment in accordance to any of
the methods contemplated under the Rules. Even an
emergency appointment in accordance to the
provisions of Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1967 and
Rule 15 of the Rules of 1990 would be a regular
appointment for the purpose of grant of senior pay
scale.
44. That apart, the provision for grant of senior
scale and selection grade was incorporated by the
UGC in the Scheme formulated by it in the revision of
pay scale in November, 1988. It is seen that prior to
November 1988, initial induction into the department
was made in the cadre of Lecturers. Thereafter, there
was an avenue for promotion from Lecturer to the post
of Assistant Professor and thereafter to the post of
Professor and Principal. However, with effect from the
year 1988, the post of Lecturers were abolished,
inductions were made directly into the post of Assistant
Professor and in the cadre of Assistant Professor a
different pay scale and senior scale was incorporated
and while indicating the provision for grant of selection
grade and senior scale, a provision was incorporated
by the UGC itself by stipulating certain conditions,
including the condition of completing 8 years of service
after regular appointment. The words 'regular
appointment' as used by the UGC is explained not only
by the UGC, but also by the State Government in the
circulars issued from time to time, particularly in the
Circulars dated 27-11-1990 and 12-2-1992. The UGC
clarified the notification issued by it and the clarification
for counting of past services was also incorporated in
these circulars. If the circulars issued by the UGC and
adopted by the State Government are taken note of, it
would be seen that in all these circulars certain
conditions have been incorporated indicating the
manner in which the service of 8 years is to be
calculated. One such circular issued by the UGC is 27-
11-1990 and the following stipulations are made in the
said circular in this regard:
"1. Previous service without any break as a lecturer or
equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratory
or other scientific organizations (CSIR, ICAR, DRDO,
UGC etc) as a UGC Research Scientist should be
counted for placement of lecturers in Senior
Scale/Selection Grade provided that:--
(a) the post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as
the post of lecturer;
(b) the qualification for the post were not lower than the
qualification prescribed by UGC for the post of lecturer;
(c) the lecturer concerned possessed the minimum
qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment
as lecturer;
(d) the post was filled in accordance with the
prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the
University/State Government;
(e) the appointment was not ad hoc or in a leave
vacancy or less than one year duration.
No distinction should be made with reference to the
nature of management of the institution where previous
service was rendered (private/local body/Government)
if the above criteria are satisfied."
28. Against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, a writ
appeal was preferred wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has
examined the rule 13 (5) of the Rules, 1967 in case of State of M.P.
& another Vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit 2 wherein the Division
Bench has held at paragraph 8, 9, 14 & 15 as under:-
"8. Rule 5(3) of the Rules of 1967 provides that service
namely M.P. Educational Service Technical Branch
shall consist all the persons recruited to the service in
accordance with the provisions of these Rules. Rule 8
provides that all appointments to the service after the
commencement of these rules shall be made by the
Government and no such appointment shall be made
except after selection by one of the methods of
recruitment as specified in rule 7. Rule 7(4) provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) if
in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of the
service so require, the Government may, after
consulting the Commission, adopt such methods of
recruitment to the service other than those specified in
sub-rule (1) as it may, by an order issued in this regard,
prescribed. Rule 13(5) provides that if panel of selected
candidate by the Commission is not available, the posts
may be filled by emergency appointments in the
prescribed manner; namely, an advertisement shall be
issued by the Government, applications for emergency
appointments shall be submitted in the form prescribed
in Schedule V and the applications received shall be
2 2013 (IV) MPJR 123
registered and tabulated according to the criteria
prescribed in the table. Proviso of sub-rule (5) provides
that if and when Public Service Commission Panel for
these subjects is available, these teachers will be liable
to be removed without notice. All the respondents were
appointed before coming into force of Rules of 1990.
Under the Rules of 1990, rule 4 provides that the
service shall consist of the persons namely; persons
recruited to the service except on emergency and ad-
hoc basis before commencement of these rules. Rule
15 of Rules of 1990 again provides for emergency
appointment which is referred herein-above. Rule 4(2)
specifically provides that the persons recruited to the
service except on emergency and adhoc basis before
commencement of these rules shall be persons of
service. If we see the provision of M.P. Regularization
of Ad-hoc Appointment Rules, 1986, the following
provisions may be referred which read as under:-
2. Overriding effect- These rules shall have effect
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any other rules or orders on the subject for the time
being force.
4. Scope and application- These rules shall apply for
regularization of ad-hoc appointments made on the post
and in the department mentioned in the Schedule prior
to the 31st March, 1986.
Aforesaid provisions specifically provide that these rules
shall be applicable for regularization of the adhoc
appointments made on the posts in the department
prior to 31.3.1986. The M.P. Civil Services (General
Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 also deserves to
be referred. Rule 12(4) provides as under:-
12. Seniority.-
....
(4) Seniority of Adhoc employees.-(a) A person
appointed on adhoc basis shall not get any seniority till
the regularization of his services.
(b) If a person is appointed on adhoc basis by
substantially following the procedure laid down by the
Recruitment Rules and the appointee continues in the
post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service
in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating
service shall be counted for seniority.
Aforesaid provision specifically provides that if a person
is appointed on adhoc basis by substantially following
the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules and
the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till
regularization of service in accordance with rules, the
period of officiating service shall be counted for
seniority.
Now in the light of the aforesaid, recruitment under the
Rules of 1967 may be looked into. Rule 13(5) of Rules
of 1967 provides provision for emergency appointment.
The difference between rules 12 and 13(5) is only in
respect of interview by the Commission. For ready
reference, we quote rule 12 of Rules of 1967 which
reads thus:-
12. Direct recruitment by selection-
(1) A selection for recruitment to the service shall be
held at such intervals as the Government may in
consultation with the Commission, from time to time
determine. (2) The selection of candidates for the
service shall be made by the Commission after
interviewing them. (3) 15 percent and 18 percent of the
available vacancies for direct recruitment plus the
carried forward vacancies from the last occasion, if any,
shall be reserved for candidates who are members of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
respectively.
(4) In filling the vacancies so reserved candidates who
are members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes shall be considered for appointment in the order
in which their names appear in the list referred to in rule
13 irrespective of their relative rank as compared with
other candidates.
(5) Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes, declared by the Commission to
be suitable for appointment to the service with due
regard to the maintenance of efficiency of
administration may be appointed to the vacancies
reserved for the candidates of the Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes as the case may be under sub-
rule (3).
(6) If a sufficient number of candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are not
available for filling all the vacancies reserved for them,
the remaining vacancies shall be filled from among
other candidates and an equivalent number of
additional vacancies shall be reserved for candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes for the next selection in the manner indicates in
Rule 12(3) above;
Provided that if a sufficient number of suitable
candidates is not available in the next selection to fill all
the reserved vacancies, including the additional
vacancies or such of them as are not filled, shall lapse.
14. Aforesaid position clarifies that the persons who
were duly recruited after following the procedure for
emergency appointment except, the interview by the
Commission, were entitled to be regularized from the
date of initial appointment and not by subsequent date.
15. The learned Single Judge has considered the
matter extensively and by a reasoned order. As
discussed hereinabove, the emergency appointees
were duly regularized even by the State after getting
concurrence from the State Public Service Commission,
though aforesaid order has been given effect to with
effect from 24.12.1998 but considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, these were entitled for the
benefit from the date of initial appointment as has been
held by the writ Court."
29. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 785/2015 in case of
Dr. Phool Das Mahant Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others
and other connected cases, have also examined the issue and held
in paragraph 12 to 14 as under:-
"(12) Indisputably, the petitioners were also appointed in
exercise of powers under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1967
and were similarly placed like the petitioners before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court. In fact,when the
petitioners were appointed in the year 1986 to 1989 in
the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh , they were
governed by the same set of rules. Although the Rules
of 1967 have since been replaced bythe M.P./C.G.
Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment
Rules, 1990 yet the same Rules still apply in the State of
Chhattisgarh.
(13) The law having been settled in the case of similarly
appointed persons by the Single Bench of Madhya
Pradesh High Court, affirmed bythe Division Bench in
Writ Appeal and SLP having been dismissed by the
Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioners are also entitled for similar relief.
(14) In view of the above, all the writ petitions stand
allowed. The State Government shall consider the case
of all the petitioners/emergency appointees for grant of
Senior Pay Scale/Selection Grade Pay Scale by treating
the services rendered by them from the initial date of
appointment as regular appointment for the purpose of
conferring the benefit of Senior Pay Scale and Selection
Grade Pay Scale. Needless to say, in view of the above
order, the order impugned cannot be given effect to by
the State Government of Chhattisgarh."
30. Against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court a
review, writ appeal before this Court and Special Leave Petitions
were filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which have been
dismissed. The record of the case would show that the respondents
have complied with the order passed by the Court, but the claim of
the petitioners have been rejected by the impugned order.
31. From the above-stated judgment passed by Hon'ble Division of
Madhya Pradesh High Court, High Court of Chhattisgarh and the
Single Bench and also considering the nature of appointment, mode
of appointment, the recruitment rules, 1967 and Rule, 1990, it is
quite vivid that the petitioners were appointed by due process of law
and subsequently they have been regularized by the State of
Chhattisgarh in the year 2005 and also considering the circular of
UGC, erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, it is quite vivid that the
petitioners past service as emergency appointee deserves to be
counted for grant of selection grade and for pension and not for the
seniority as the validity of the Rules, 2005 particularly, the Rule 10 is
not subjected to challenge before this Court. It is made clear that
unless the validity of Rule 10 is challenged before the appropriate
forum, this Court cannot consider to grant seniority from the initial
date as the petitioners failed to clear the PSC examination and they
will be placed below the candidates selected through PSC.
32. The State Government without appreciating the law, without
differentiating between seniority and grant of selection grade, has
rejected the representation vide its impugned order 27.11.2018
(Annexure P/36) which deserves to be set aside. The law has been
well settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that upgradation merely
confers a financial benefit by raising the scale of pay of the post
without there being movement from a lower position to a higher
position. In an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the
same post without any change in the duties and responsibilities but
merely gets a higher pay scale. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rama Nand & others Vs. Chief Secretary, Government (NCT of
Delhi) and another3, has held at paragraph 11 as under:-
"11. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to refer
us to para 29 which sets out the principles as under:
"29. On a careful analysis of the principles relating to
promotion and upgradation in the light of the aforesaid
decisions, the following principles emerge:
(i) Promotion is an advancement in rank or grade or
both and is a step towards advancement to a higher
position, grade or honour and dignity. Though in the
traditional sense promotion refers to advancement to a
higher post, in its wider sense, promotion may include
an advancement to a higher pay scale without moving
to a different post. But the mere fact that both--that is,
advancement to a higher position and advancement to
a higher pay scale--are described by the common
term "promotion", does not mean that they are the
same. The two types of promotion are distinct and
have different connotations and consequences.
(ii) Upgradation merely confers a financial benefit by
raising the scale of pay of the post without there being
movement from a lower position to a higher position. In
an upgradation, the candidate continues to hold the
same post without any change in the duties and
responsibilities but merely gets a higher pay scale.
(iii) Therefore, when there is an advancement to a
higher pay scale without change of post, it may be
referred to as upgradation or promotion to a higher pay
scale. But there is still difference between the two.
Where the advancement to a higher pay scale without
change of post is available to everyone who satisfies
the eligibility conditions, without undergoing any
process of selection, it will be upgradation. But if the
advancement to a higher pay scale without change of
post is as a result of some process which has
elements of selection, then it will be a promotion to a
higher pay scale. In other words, upgradation by
application of a process of selection, as contrasted
from an upgradation simpliciter can be said to be a
promotion in its wider sense, that is, advancement to a
higher pay scale.
(iv) Generally, upgradation relates to and applies to all
positions in a category, who have completed a
minimum period of service. Upgradation can also be
restricted to a percentage of posts in a cadre with
reference to seniority (instead of being made available
to all employees in the category) and it will still be an
upgradation simpliciter. But if there is a process of
3 (2020) 9 SCC 208
selection or consideration of comparative merit or
suitability for granting the upgradation or benefit of
advancement to a higher pay scale, it will be a
promotion. A mere screening to eliminate such
employees whose service records may contain
adverse entries or who might have suffered
punishment, may not amount to a process of selection
leading to promotion and the elimination may still be a
part of the process of upgradation simpliciter. Where
the upgradation involves a process of selection criteria
similar to those applicable to promotion, then it will, in
effect, be a promotion, though termed as upgradation.
(v) Where the process is an upgradation simpliciter,
there is no need to apply the rules of reservation. But
where the upgradation involves a selection process
and is therefore a promotion, the rules of reservation
will apply.
(vi) Where there is a restructuring of some cadres
resulting in creation of additional posts and filling of
those vacancies by those who satisfy the conditions of
eligibility which includes a minimum period of service,
will attract the rules of reservation. On the other hand,
where the restructuring of posts does not involve
creation of additional posts but merely results in some
of the existing posts being placed in a higher grade to
provide relief against stagnation, the said process
does not invite reservation."
33. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of State of MP and others vs.
Satyavrata Taran4 has remanded the matter and thereafter the
matter was listed before the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh
High Court as Writ Appeal No 599 of 2008 and the Division Bench
has decided the matter on 7-2-2012 by remanding the matter to the
learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh
High Court has directed State of Madhya Pradesh to consider the
case of the petitioners for grant of senior scale/selection grade after
treating the services rendered by the petitioners from the initial date
of their appointment as emergency appointees as a regular
appointment for the purpose of conferring the benefit of senior pay
scale and section grade.
34. Considering the fact that the petitioners have been appointed by
following due process of selection and the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and this Court has already been concluded the issue and
4 (2012) 2 SCC 83qw
also considering the fact that similarly situated Assistant Professors
who have been appointed on emergency basis, have been granted
the granted benefit of selection grade by adding of the past
services, the petitioners are also entitled to get same benefit and
their past services deserve to be counted for the purpose of grant of
selection grade only. The issue that similarly situated employees
are entitled to get similar relief, has been well settled by Hon'ble
Supreme in catina of decisions out of which latest one is in case of
Rushi Bhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation5, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at
paragraph 17 as under:-
"17. .........Normally, and as a model employer, on
accepting the said decision, the respondent-
Corporation should have uniformly applied and granted
the benefit to all its similarly situated employees
affected by the order dated 28th October 2010. This
would have avoided unnecessary litigation before the
courts, as was held in State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others:
"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the court, all other
identically situated persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time
postulates that all similarly situated persons should be
treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be
that merely because other similarly situated persons
did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be
treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-
recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays
as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their cases and
acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay
only because of the reason that their counterparts who
had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in
their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the
benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be
treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or
5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 641
the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss
their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those
cases where the judgment pronounced by the court
was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all
similarly situated persons, whether they approached
the court or not. With such a pronouncement the
obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend
the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons.
Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of
the decision touches upon the policy matters, like
scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma
v. Union of India). On the other hand, if the judgment of
the court was in personam holding that benefit of the
said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the
court and such an intention is stated expressly in the
judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor
and language of the judgment, those who want to get
the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall
have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from
either laches and delays or acquiescence"."
35. In view of the above discussion and considering the entire facts of
the case, material on record, both writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned order dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure P/36) and denial of
selection grade by the respondents are set aside. The respondents
are directed to examine the case of the individual petitioners after
adding their past service appointed on emergency basis for grant of
selection grade and if the petitioners fulfill all the requisite conditions
which are required for grant of selection grade as per the policy/
circular issued by the State Government as well as University
Grants Commission from time to time within four months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that adding of
past services shall be considered for grant of selection grade and
pension only. It will not be counted for grant of seniority.
36. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the
merit of any individual petitioners regarding their entitlement to get
selection grade. This Court has only examined whether the past
services of the petitioners on emergency basis is required to be
added or not for grant of selection grade.
37. It is further directed that after adding the past service, if the
petitioners are found eligible for grant of selection grade, the
difference of arrears be paid to them within further period of two
months from the date of taking final decision over grant of selection
grade.
38. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
