Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
these writ petitions, therefore they are being heard and decided by this
common judgment, however, for the sake of brevity facts of WPSB
No.442 of 2020 alone are being considered and discussed.
2. The reliefs sought in WPSB No.442 of 2020 are extracted
below:-
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the
certiorari quashing the letter dated 19.02.2020 (Annexure No. 9 to
the writ petition) and cancellation order dated 20.02.2020
(Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition).
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the
mandamus directing the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 to retain the
status of the petitioners as per their post and faculty of Sri Dev
Suman Uttarakhand University's campus, Rishikesh (in Pandit
Lalit Mohan Sharma, Govt. P.G. College, Rishikesh, Dehradun in
which administrative control has been handed over by respondent
no. 1 to the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 06.08.2019
(Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition)) as per option made by the
petitioners dated 11.02.2020 which was made on the dictate of
Government's Letter No. 1188/XXIV-C-1/2019-01(13)/2014 dated
23.01.2020 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition).
iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to not disturb the peaceful
functioning of the petitioners as per their post in the campus of Sri
Dev Suman University at Pandit Lalit Mohan Sharma, Govt. P.G.
College, Rishikesh, Dehradun and maintain the status quo of the
petitioners as on today working in the campus of Sri Dev Suman
University at Pandit Lalit Mohan Sharma, Govt. P.G. College,
Rishikesh, Dehradun in the tune of employees of Dr. Soban Singh
Jeena University, Almora and option dated 11.02.2020 made by
the petitioners."
3. Facts of the case, on which, there is no dispute are that the
State Legislature enacted 'Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Uttarakhand
University Act, 2011' (Act No.22 of 2011). As per provisions of the said
Act, State Government established a University, in the year 2011, known
as Deen Dayal Upadhyaya University at Badshahithaul, Tehri-Garhwal.
Subsequently in the year 2012, the said University was re-named as 'Sri
Dev Suman University' vide notification dated 19.10.2012. Thereafter
vide Government Order dated 06.08.2019 Pandit Lalit Mohan Sharma,
Government P.G. College, Rishikesh approval for handing over under
administrative control of the University was given and later the said
college was declared to be campus college of the University. Teaching
and non-teaching employees, serving in Pandit Lalit Mohan Sharma,
Government P.G. College, Rishikesh, who are Government Employees,
made representations through Principal of the College to the Vice-
Chancellor and also the State Government, for their absorption in
services of the University.
4. On the other hand, teaching and non-teaching employees
serving in other Government Degree/P.G. Colleges maintained by Higher
Education Department also submitted representations to the State
Government for absorption of their services in the University and they
insisted that option for joining University services should be open to all
teaching and non-teaching employees of Higher Education Department of
the State Government.
5. Ultimately, State Government intervened by providing that
all - teaching and non-teaching employees, serving in Government
Degree and P.G. Colleges will have a right to exercise their option and
thereafter options were invited from all employees serving in various
Government Colleges. When all employees serving in Government
Degree/P.G. Colleges submitted options, then State Government granted
necessary approval for transfer of services of Government Teachers in
services of the University. Petitioners are the teachers, who were serving
in Pandit Lalit Mohan Sharma Government P.G. College, Rishikesh at
the time when it was declared campus college and their contention is that
they alone are entitled to be absorbed in the campus college of the
University and options should not have been invited from Government
teachers, serving in other Colleges.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
State Government has no authority to pass an order in respect of
government Teachers after the aforesaid college became a campus
college, therefore the approval granted by the State Government for their
absorption in University service, is void-ab-initio.
7. The grievance raised by the petitioners is without any
substance. Since petitioners belong to the cadre of Government Teachers,
therefore, they do not have any right better than Government Teachers
serving elsewhere in the State. Petitioners' claim for absorption in the
University service does not improve merely because they were posted in
a particular College, which later became a campus college of the
University. Teachers serving in Government Colleges form one
homogeneous class, therefore, they cannot be discriminated against,
based only on their place of posting.
8. The State Government was thus justified in inviting options
from all Government Teachers of the State. Therefore, the grievance
raised by the petitioners against inviting options from other teachers is
unfounded.
9. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the State
Government applied the criteria of seniority-cum-merit for absorbing
teachers in the University services. The said criteria was uniformly
applied to all. There is no allegation of any nepotism or foul play in the
matter of selection for absorption in University Service.
10. As regards the submission that State Government lacks
competence to issue the order of approval, we find force in the submission
made by learned State counsel that since State Government was the
employer in respect of all teachers serving in Government Colleges,
therefore, State Government was well within its right to grant approval
for absorption of Government teachers, who were selected for absorption
in the service of the University. Thus the order passed by the State
Government cannot be faulted, as without its approval, its employees
could not have been absorbed in University Service.
11. Even otherwise also, no prejudice is caused to the
petitioners as they are still serving as teachers in different government
colleges, their conditions of service have remain unchanged, therefore,
we are of considered opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to
challenge the order passed by the State Government.
12. Accordingly, all the writ petitions fail and the same are
hereby dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
SK
