Delhi High Court
Shri Gian Chand vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 January, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 17.01.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 9897/2016 & CM APPL. 39377/2016
SHRI GIAN CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra and Ms. Asiya,
Advs.
Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel,
AICTE with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi,
Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
A.K.CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in short 'CAT', whereby,
an OA filed by the petitioner, in effect, seeking directions to the respondents
to grant him pay scale of `3700-5700 (revised `12000-18000) with
consequential benefits, came to be dismissed.
2. Concisely, the relevant facts are that the petitioner, on selection, was
appointed as Workshop Superintendent with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on
27.03.1980 in the pay scale of `2200-4000 (pre-revised) following the
procedure laid down for such selection. It emerges from the record that he
was so appointed having qualification of Diploma in Mechanical
Engineering. It also emerges from the record that on 20.09.1989, All India
Council for Technical Education, in short 'AICTE', which is a National
Expert Body and inter alia advises the Central and the State Governments
for ensuring the co-ordinated development of technical education in
accordance with approved standards, issued guidelines for career
advancement and recommended revision of pay scales of teachers of
polytechnics inter alia of Head of Department (Lecturer - Selection Grade).
It also prescribed the detailed qualifications and experience, and, there-
under, for the post of the Head of the Department (Lecturer Selection
Grade), the essential qualification prescribed was that of First class Masters'
degree in Engineering/Technology/Technical Education or Ph.D. degree in
appropriate branch for teaching posts in Humanities and Sciences. In
continuation thereof, AICTE then also issued guidelines for career
advancement of lecturers in polytechnics, and, inter alia, specified that the
revised scale of pay circulated by it on 20.09.1989, was to be applicable
w.e.f. 1986 to all the existing teaching staff such as Principal, Head of
Department, Sr. Lecturers and Lecturers, who were appointed by the
Competent Authority and that, the existing staff, who were eligible for grant
of revised pay scales/benefits of career advancement, were exempt from the
essentiality of the revised qualifications under the circular dated 20.09.1989,
clarifying further that such qualifications were to be applicable only to the
new entrants recruited after 20.09.1989. Qualifications again came to be
revised on 30.12.1999 for all such posts including that of the Head of
Department, for the new entrants. The revised qualification now prescribed
for the post of Head of Department was of Masters' degree in appropriate
branch of engineering/technology with First class at Master's or Bachelor's
level or Ph.D. with First Class Master's degree in appropriate branch in
Humanities and Science. It appears that at some stage, around the year 2000,
the petitioner made a representation for upgradation of the post of Workshop
Superintendent, but, that was rejected by the respondents. On that, the
petitioner filed OA No.647/2001 before CAT and that came to be disposed
of with the directions to give benefit of pay scale of `3700-5700 (revised
`12000-18000) to the petitioner from the same date as given to the rank of
Head of Department alongwith arrears (provided, the petitioner fulfills the
essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Head of Department
(Lecturer and Selection Grade). This order of CAT was quashed by the
concurrent Bench of this court in WP(C) No.4895/2002 and the matter
remitted back to CAT for a fresh hearing. This resulted into disposal of the
OA 647/2001 afresh, with CAT directing the Competent Authority to
consider the plea of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations of
AICTE. Respondents rejected the plea of the petitioner afresh vide its
communication dated 11.05.2012. It resulted into filing of a fresh OA No.
3383/2012 by the petitioner and that came to be dismissed vide the
impugned order.
3. Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Workshop
Superintendent on 27.03.1980 with the qualification of Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering could be treated to be at par with the post of Head
of Department in respect whereof, AICTE issued its guidelines on
20.09.1989 revised on 30.12.1999, is the moot question for consideration
before this court.
4. Petitioner seeks to equate the post of Workshop Superintendent with
that of Head of Department seeking strength from the communication
bearing No. F. No. 1/CD/Poly dated 30.06.1998 purportedly issued by
AICTE addressed to the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of Education, Govt. of India and the ratio of the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench of CAT at Calcutta in O.A No. 412 of 1994.
5. At the onset, we observe that the qualifications prescribed for the post
of Workshop Superintendent and that of the Head of Department are at
much variance and the communication dated 30.06.1998 is only in the
nature of a proposal sent by AICTE to the Ministry of Human Resource,
which never culminated into its being, which is sought to be contended by
the petitioner. Relevant portion of the said communication reads, as under :
".....................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
1) According to Norms & Standard for polytechnics
(Diploma Programme) "formulated by E.C. and published by
AICTE in 1990 the status of workshop Superintendent was
explained as given below.
The Workshop Superintendent is the Head of all
the workshops in the polytechnic and is
responsible to the Principal in all matters
concerned with the workshop Instructions, proper
utilisation of men, materials, and machines and
maintenance in workshops and services to various
department. He will be in the cadre of the Head of
the Department.
(ii) These Norms & Standard for polytechnic institutions
were later revised in 1995, after the approval by the Council
"Norms & Standards" published by AICTE in 1995 states that :
"The Training and placement officer and workshop
superintendent will be equal in cadre to the Head
of the Department."
Keeping in view the above factual position, Council is of the
view that workshop Superintendet in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Government Polytechnic Port Blair is entitled to get pay scale
equal to pay scale of H.O.D. in Polytechnics prevailing in
Union Territory of Andman & Nikobar Island."
A bare perusal of the above-said proposal would show that this
proposal, even if it would have been accepted to be given effect to, related to
one solitary post of H.O.D. in polytechnics in the Union Territory of
Andman & Nikobar Island only. It ipso facto would not have had effect, as
far as the case of the petitioner was concerned. Be that as it may, even such
proposal is not shown to have enured to the benefit of the petitioner. In the
given factual conspectus, we do not see any merit in the plea of the
petitioner placing reliance to the recommendations made in the
communication F. No. 1/CD/Poly dated 30.06.1998.
6. It is not the case of the petitioner that any authority, much less
AICTE, has ever declared the post of Workshop Superintendent to be
equivalent to the post of Head of Department. The guidelines of AICTE
dated 20.09.1989 revised on 30.12.1999 inter alia lay down the
qualifications for new recruitments, though, exempting the applicability of
such qualifications to the posts of Lecturer; Sr. Lecturer; Head of
Department; and, the Principal, only. These guidelines, firstly, are non-
statutory. In any event, they could have their applicability only to such posts
as have come to be notified thereunder. Teaching posts have their specific
qualifications and the exemption is only to such class of employees, who are
the teachers. Even the post of the Head of Department is a post of teacher
inasmuch as it is for Lecturer - Selection Grade only. These posts therefore,
are a class apart from the other posts in the various departments of the
respondents. Therefore, in our considered opinion, drawing of comparison
amongst the two posts of Workshop Superintendent and the Teachers, which
is a class apart and for which the subject guidelines came to be issued by
AICTE, cannot be reckoned to be equal in all respects, irrespective of the
other factors like the duties and the responsibilities. Then, even if it is
assumed that the functions, duties and the responsibilities of both the posts
of Workshop Superintendent and the H.O.D. (Lecturer -Selection Grade) are
alike, the petitioner has to make out a case for himself in that regard
separately and independently, and cannot draw any benefit under the subject
guidelines of AICTE of 20.09.1989 revised on 30.12.1999. It does not
require any elaboration that the subject of upgradation of pay or post, is a
subject, which falls within the domain of the executive, which, amongst
other factors, looks into the aspects of financial implications and in such
matters, the judicial intervention is least desirable. In the said context, CAT
has placed reliance upon the judgments of the apex Courts in paragraph
No.26 and we have no reason to differ therewith.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in the petition and
the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
A.K.CHAWLA, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
JANUARY 17, 2019
rc
