V. Ramesh Babu (Dr.) vs University Of Delhi
1999 Latest Caselaw 1212 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Rule.

2. Since short question is involved in the matter, with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up and disposed of today.

3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming selection grade w.e.f. 15th August, 1973 and consequential benefits persuant thereto. Case of the petitioner, to put shortly, is that the petitioner was granted Research Training Scholarship through University Grants Commission in the Year 1967 as per which he was required to undertake teaching also. Accordingly, petitioner taught the undergraduate as well as post-graduate classes at Birla Institute of Technology and Science (hereinafter referred to as BITS, for short), Pilani, Rajasthan for a period of three years i.e. till 1970 and on 25th July. 1970 got selected as Lecturer in the Department of Botany in Swami Shradhanand College. In the meantime, he completed his Doctorate also. On 20th July, 1973 petitioner applied lor placement in selection grade as according to him, he fulfillled the conditions and was eligible for grant of selection grade for which his period of Fellowship spent at BITS was to be taken into consideration.

4. It may be mentioned, at this stage, that another person Dr. Sudhakar Shukla and also claimed selection grade on the same basis and had filed suit before the District Judge but it was rejected. He filed First Appeal against the judgement of the Trial Court which was allowed and suit was decreed in his favour with the direction to give him the selection grade. University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to so DU, for short) filed Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of the first appellate court. Vide judgment dated 6th May, 1992 the appeal of the DU was dismissed and DU was directed to consider the research experience gained during the period of research fellowship for placing the petitioner/lecturer in the selection grade. It is not disputed at the bar that as per the said judgment petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of his having worked as Fellow at BITS.

5. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of DU contended that petition filed by the petitioner is highly belated and suffers from unexplained laches and delays - and therefore warrants to be dismissed on this ground. In support of his submission he stated that the petitioner had applied for selection grade on 20th July, 1973 and this request of the petitioner was rejected was back vide communication dated 14th October, 1981. Thereafter, petitioner kept on making representations and no response was given to those representations and these repeated representations would be of no advantage as per settled law. It is further submitted that even when the judgment in the case of University of Delhi v. Dr. Sudhakar Shukla was pronounced in the year 1992 petitioner filed this petition three years thereafter i.e. in the year 1995. Thus it is stated that the present writ petition is belated from this angle also.

6. No doubt the representation of the petitioner was rejected by DU in the year 1981, taking the view that experience as a Fellow at BITS would not be taken into consideration. It also cannot be disputed that if a person, after his representation is rejected, keeps on making representation, such representations are not sufficient ground for explaining the delay and that it is appropriate for the person to approach the Court in time. However, certain developments which have taken there-alter have tilted the balance in favour of the petitioner and which can be stated to be sufficient explanation for coming to the Court at this stage. On the representation of the petitioner, the matter was infact considered by the Joint Consultative Committee (Teachers) (hereinafter referred to as JCT, for short) on merits in its meeting held on 27th February, 1991. After considering the case of the petitioner it decided to await the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Sudhakar Shukla (supra). Minutes of the said JCT meeting are produced before me and from the perusal of the Minutes it is clear that the case of the petitioner was taken up on merits and JCT wanted to decide the question as to whether the teaching experience of the petitioner during his research fellowship at BITS for three years should be counted for the purpose of placement in the selection grade. After deliberations JCT thought it appropriate to await the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Sudhakar Shukla (supra) as precisely this very question was to be considered in the Regular Second Appeals pending before this Court at that time. Thus case of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground that it was belated. On the other hand JCT considered as to whether petitioner was entitled to the benefit of period of fellowship and decided to go by the ultimate decision of this Court. This Court thereafter vide its judgment in Dr. Sudhakar Shukla (supra) case 1992(3) Delhi Lawyer 110 held that such an experience is to be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade. After this judgment came, petitioner again made representation in September 1993. In fact it may be interesting to note that on his representation DU itself sent communication dated 10th September, 1993 to the college forwarding his representation and requesting the College to look into the case and give specific recommendation and observation to the College in the matter so that the same could be considered by the DU. In view of this instruction given by DU itself, the matter was placed before the Governing Body of the college in December 1993 and Governing Body of the College passed the Resolution accepting the teaching experience of the petitioner at BITS. It may be mentioned that merely because experience of the petitioner was to be counted, he would not have got the selection grade automatically and this matter was to be considered by Selection Committee. Thereafter, Selection Committee was constituted and the case of the petitioner was considered in the meeting held on 5th December, 1994 wherein petitioner was also interviewed and petitioner was recommended grant of selection grade w.e.f. 15th August, 1973. When this recommendation was sent to the DU, University vide its letter dated 11th January, 1995 rejected the case of the petitioner which order was communicated by the College to the petitioner vide letter dated 25th January, 1995 and immediately thereafter present petition was filed.

7. The aforesaid discussion clearly demonstrate that the case of the petitioner was considered by the University as well as the College authorities on merits. Infact the respondents awaited for the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Sudhakar Shukla (supra) so that the outcome of the said case would decided the case of the petitioner also and after that judgment necessary exercise was done by the respondent which culminated into recommendation by the selection Committee to grant selection grade to the petitioner. After having done this, University cannot turn back and say that the claim is belated. I am, therefore, of the opinion that respondent has been able to satisfactorily explain the delay, if any, in filing the writ petition. Further when the University authorities themselves decided to await the decision in the case of Dr. Sudhakar Shukla (supra) rather than forcing the petitioner to approach this Court earlier, University should have given the benefit of the said judgment otherwise it was clearly violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for this reason this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Respondents are directed to grant selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 15th August, 1973. Petitioner shall also be entitled to other consequential benefits, if any, according tp rules.

No order as to costs.