Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. vs S.V. Vageesha And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1685 Del

$~3
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                          W.P.(C) 2080/2017
                                          Date of decision: 30th March, 2017
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                     ..... Petitioner
                   Through      Mr. Sanjay Ghose, ASC with Ms.
                   Pratishtha Vij, Advocates.

                           versus

S.V. VAGEESHA AND ANR.                           ..... Respondent
                  Through     Respondent No.1 in person.
                  Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel for AICTE with
                  Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No. 12803/2017

We are inclined to allow the present application for taking on record additional documents including the affidavit of Dr. Shiv Kumar Dubey, subject to clarification that we will not go into a fishing and roving enquiry and predicate our decision on the basis of any assumption.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2080/2017

We have heard the counsel for the petitioners-Government of NCT of Delhi and its functionaries in this writ petition, which impugns order dated 26th August, 2016 whereby OA No.1614/2014 filed by S.V. Vageesha, respondent No.1 before us, has been allowed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short).

2. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in

the G.B. Pant Polytechnic with effect from 27th November, 1995.

3. The first respondent claims and the impugned order accepts that the first respondent's past service from 8th October, 1992 to 22nd November, 1995 as a Lecturer in Bapuji Polytechnic, Shabanpur, Karnataka should be counted for the purpose of Senior Scale and Selection Grade under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) notified by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has rejected and declined the other prayer made by the first respondent for counting of period between 25th August, 1986 to 30th November, 1987 and thereafter from 1st December, 1987 to 14th August, 1992, when the said respondent had worked as a Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Shabanpur, Karnataka. To the extent relief has been denied, the first respondent who is present in person states that he has not challenged the order dated 26th August, 2016.

5. The issue, which arises for consideration, is whether respondent No.1 is entitled to count/include his service as a Lecturer in the Bapuji Polytechnic for the purpose of CAS in terms of the revised guidelines issued by the AICTE on 10th September, 1993, which stipulate as under:-

"Counting of Previous Service

(A) Previous service without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent in a university, college, national laboratory or other scientific organizations (CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, USC, etc.) and 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 qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the Govt. for the

post of Lecturer;

(c) the Lecturers concerned possessed the minimum qualification prescribed by the Govt. for appointment as lecturer.

(d) the post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the competent authority.

            (e)     the appointment was not adhoc or in a leave
            vacancy of less than one year duration.

            (B)      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."

The aforesaid guidelines postulate and state that previous service without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent, in a university, college, national laboratory or other scientific organisations can be counted for placement of Lecturers in Senior Scale/Selection Grade, provided the conditions stated are satisfied. Paragraph B states that no distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institute. It does not matter whether previous service is rendered in an institute managed by the Government, local body or a private trust or society.

6. It is an undisputed position that the first respondent had worked as a Lecturer in Bapuji Polytechnic between 10th August, 1992 to 22nd November, 1995 and without any break had joined G.B. Pant Polytechnic on 27th November, 1995. The "break" between 22nd November, 1995 and 27th November, 1995 is not the reason or ground taken by the petitioners for denying the benefit. The first respondent was denied benefit for want of satisfaction of condition (a) in paragraph (A) of the guidelines dated 10 th September, 1993. Condition (a) postulates that the earlier post should be of equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of Lecturer. The contention is

that the grade or scale of pay of Lecturer in Delhi Government between 10th August, 1992 and 22nd November, 1995 was Rs.2200-4000, whereas the grade/scale of pay of the first respondent in Bapuji Polytechnic of Lecturer was Rs.1900-3650. This is factually correct, but in our opinion the Tribunal has rightly held that this difference in the pay scale in the present case, could not disqualify the first respondent. The reason is that the State governments had discretion to fix the pay-scales for the Lecturers. This liberty and right was granted to the State Governments by the AICTE. The Government in the State of Karnataka had fixed the scale of Lecturers in private institutes as Rs.1900-3650. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order the Tribunal has affirmatively recorded that the Karnataka Government with the approval of AICTE had granted the scale of Rs.1900- 3650 with effect from 1st January, 1989 to the lecturers with post graduate qualification.

7. The language of clause (a), supports the view expressed by the Tribunal. The post in the earlier institution should be in the equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of Lecturer. The language and words used are pertinent, for AICTE was aware that grade/scale of pay for Lecturers could vary and need not be identical in every State. Thus the word "same" scale/grade is not used. The words/expression "equivalent...as the post of Lecturer" refers to grade/scale payable to a holder of the post of Lecturer. This is a reasonable and plausible view. If the respondent had remained employed in Karnataka as a Lecturer he would have been entitled to count the period in the scale of Rs. 1900-3650/- for CAS. There is no justification and reason why this period should not be counted for CAS, because the first respondent was appointed as a Lecturer by the petitioners. This anomaly can be avoided, with the interpretation placed. The objective and purpose, behind the guidelines, which permits counting of past service for CAS on fulfilment of the specified condition, is to permit lecturers to

change and shift from one institution to another. Any interpretation should keep the said objective in mind.

8. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners alongwith CM No.

12803/2017 taken on record, two new/additional grounds have been taken.

Firstly, doubt or debate is raised as to the pay scale of Lecturers as

prescribed in the State of Karnataka. We would not like to go into the said

aspect because the petitioners themselves are in "doubt" and "unclear" as

to the pay scale of Lecturers in the State of Karnataka. Reference can be

made to Annexure-II "proceedings of the Government of Karnataka".

AICTE scales of pay extended to Lecturers of Engineering subjects,

Engineering and Sciences covered under the AICTE scheme was

mentioned as Rs.1900-3650.

9. The second objection relates to GATE qualification, which it is

submitted was mandatory for new entrants/recruits after 20 th September,

1989. The petitioners had not specifically raised the said objection in their

reply to the OA. The first respondent in the OA had pleaded that he was

appointed as a Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in Bapuji Institute of

Engineering and Technology on 25th August, 1986. Subsequently, he

acquired the post-graduate qualification and started working as a Lecturer

in Bapuji Polytechnic. Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology and

Bapuji Polytechnic were established by Bapuji Educational Association,

Davena, Karnataka and the two institutions were located in the same

campus area. Thus, according to the first respondent his date of

appointment was 25th August, 1986. He was not a new entrant/recruit after

20th September, 1989. We would reject this objection of the petitioners for

the reason that if the stand is to be accepted, then the first respondent was

not eligible and should not have been appointed as a Lecturer (Civil

Engineering) in the G.B. Pant Polytechnic in 1995. Obviously, the

petitioners at the time of appointment had verified and were satisfied that

the first respondent fulfils the mandatory eligibility qualification. Bapuji

Institute of Engineering and Technology where the respondent had worked

from 25th August, 1986 onwards is also an AICTE approved institute.

Bapuji Polytechnic was similarly approved by AICTE and with effect from

2000 became a grant-in-aid institution of the Government of Karnataka. It

was never the case of the petitioners that the first respondent did not have

the qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any reason or ground

to interfere with the impugned order which is just and fair. The writ

petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MARCH 30, 2017 NA/VKR