Om Prakash Poplai (Deceased) ... vs University Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 5799 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                  Judgment Reserved on: 16.12.2010
                  Judgment Delivered on: 21.12.2010

+                        RSA No.175/2002


OM PRAKASH POPLAI (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS.                      ........Appellant
             Through: Mr.Alok Mahajan & Mr.Rajesh Arora,
                       Advocates.

                   Versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI                      ..........Respondent
              Through:         Ms.Maninder Acharya and Mr.Yashish
                               Chandra, Advocates.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes


INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated

29.7.2002 which had endorsed the findings of the trial judge dated

01.2.1998 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Om Prakash Poplai had

been dismissed.

2. The factual matrix is as follows:

i. Plaintiff Om Prakash Poplai was a part time lecturer in the

faculty of law in the University of Delhi for period 24.7.1971

to 29.7.1976. On 29.7.1976 plaintiff was selected to the post

of a whole time lecturer. Contention of the plaintiff is that

the period of five years spent as part time lecturer had not

been considered by the defendant department for giving him

three increments at the time of his selection as a whole-time

lecturer on 29.7.1976; this was in spite of recommendations

of the selection committee. This recommendation of the

Selection Committee was illegally ignored.

ii. Contention of the defendant was that there was nothing on

record to show that the Selection Committee had granted the

said advance increments to the plaintiff; the experience of a

part time lecturer who was otherwise a practicing advocate

cannot be equated with a whole-time lecturer of the

University; considerations are distinct and different; a fifteen

years experience is required for a whole-time lecturer;

plaintiff did not have the qualified experience.

iii. Initially eight issues had been framed by the trial court.

Thereafter two more additional issues were framed. The first

additional issue related to the letter of Professor Upendra

Baxi (the then Dean of the Faculty of Law) dated 20.11.1976

on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming the relief in the

present suit and which is the thrust of the claim of the

plaintiff for his relief in the said suit. Suit of the plaintiff was

dismissed by the trial judge.

iv. The relevant extract of the letter of Professor Upendra

Baxi dated 20.11.1976 Ex.P-10 reads as follows:

"I distinctly recall that the entire committee discussed with Shri Poplai during the interview the minimum stating salary he would accept and noted that he wanted a minimum of three increments added to his basis salary."

v. Court was of the view that even presuming that there

was such a recommendation by Professor Upendra Baxi he

being a member of the Selection Committee only and not

being the Appointing Authority such a recommendation was

not binding upon the University.

vi. This finding of the trial judge was affirmed in appeal on

29.7.2002. The finding of the trial judge was endorsed; it

was held that the recommendations of Selection Committee

are not binding.

3. This is a second appeal. It was admitted and on 30.11.2006

the following substantial question of law was formulated:

"Whether the first appellate court failed to itself examine the evidence on record, to give its own reasons on issues of fact and law which were in controversy before the trial court and also failed to give its decision on the alternate relief sought by amendment in the plaint during the appeal?"

4. Admittedly, the plaintiff was a part-time lecturer with the

University in the Faculty of Law. The considerations for

appointment to a full time lecturer are distinct and different.

There is no dispute to this proposition. It is also not disputed that

while teaching as a part-time lecturer the petitioner was otherwise

in the legal profession and a practicing lawyer. Perusal of Ex.P-10

also shows that member of the Selection Committee which

included Professor Upendra Baxi had probably arrived at some

kind of a consensus that three increments were inadvertently

omitted to be mentioned while recommending appointment of the

plaintiff as a full time lecturer. The Selection Committee is a body

distinct and different from the Executive body which is the

Appointing Authority of the Delhi University. It was for the

Appointing Authority alone to have taken a decision on the

recommendations made by the Selection Committee; they would

not per se binding; they may or may not have been considered.

The appellant had also relied upon the office noting recommending

his case for three increments since inception, however, the further

noting i.e. of the Grievance Committee Ex.PW-35/5 had noted that

in case a part time lecturer was treated at par with a full-time

lecturer the benefits would be extended to the appellant/plaintiff

Om Prakash Poplai. The Grievance Committee had left this

question open. The Executive Council in its meeting dated

05.01.1981 vide Resolution No.584 had, however, on the benefit of

increments to be given to Assistant Lecturers and if the same

should be extended to part-time lecturers in the School of

Correspondence Courses had not accepted this recommendation.

The ultimate decision lay with the Executive Council. The

Executive Council had not extended this benefit of advance

increments given to Assistant Lecturers to be extended to part-

time lectures in the School of Correspondence Courses.

5. In this back ground since this recommendation of three

advance increments was not granted to the part time lecturers at

the time of their appointment as a full time lecturer, suit of the

plaintiff was rightly dismissed. The trial judge had also rightly

noted that there is no question of discrimination of one class qua

the other; there is no violation of the right to equality as has been

pleaded before it under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

There is no fault in the impugned judgment. Substantial question

of law is answered accordingly. There being no merit in the

appeal, it is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

DECEMBER 21, 2010 nandan