NATVERLAL MAGANLAL PATEL Vs. ANAND AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for following main relief in para 32 of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed with an Institute of Agriculture, Anand prior to 1972 and in the year 1972, the Gujarat Agricultural University having come into existence, the services of the petitioners were transferred to the Gujarat Agricultural University. At that time, the petitioners were working as Assistant Professors and next promotion was to the post of Professor or equivalent to it. The petitioners were given promotions on the post of Professor in the pay scale of Rs.500- 1250. The petitioners have averred that in the case of petitioners Nos.1 to 5, no condition for subject to selection was imposed in their promotion orders and they started working as Professors or equivalent post. It is further case of the petitioners that the Board of Management of the University revised the pay scale from Rs.500-1250 to Rs.1100-1600 with effect from 1.6.1972 vide notification dated 9.4.1974. The petitioners have averred that by notification dated 8.4.1974, the University provided that the Rules of Recruitment which were immediately in force prior to 1.6.1972 would be applicable in the case of transferred employees. It is the case of the petitioners that the Board of Management of the University prescribed qualifications vide notification dated 3.7.1973 for different posts, including the post of Professor and equivalent to it, wherein relaxation to acquire qualification of Ph.D. degree was also prescribed. However, such qualification criteria would not come in the way of the petitioners for getting the pay scale for the post of Professor as the qualification criteria were prospective in nature and even if such criteria are to be applied in the case of the petitioners, the petitioners would fall in the relaxation clause and since the petitioners have subsequently acquired Ph.D. qualification, the petitioners would be entitled to revised pay scale. The petitioners have alleged that though the Board of Management called for the objections as per its decision in the meeting held on 22.9.1975 for fixing the new criteria of qualification for the post of Professor for granting revised pay scale of University Grants Commission ('UGC' for short), however, as stated above, the petitioners since were entitled to criteria of relaxation for acquiring Ph.D. qualification, the petitioners could be considered eligible for revised UGC pay scale for the post of Professor. It is further stated that even if any professor fails to acquire Ph.D. qualification within the prescribed time limit, such professor shall not be allowed to cross the stage of increment but he would remain to be entitled for revised pay scale. However, the petitioners though are working on the post of Professor or equivalent to it and though no order of degradation or revision is passed, the petitioners have been denied the pay scale for the post of Professor. The petitioners have referred the earlier petition filed by them and have also stated that in view of the recommendation made by respondent No.1 to the State Government, the petitioners were entitled to get salary of Professor in the revised pay scale of Rs.1500-2500. The petitioners have thus challenged the order passed by the State Government of rejecting their claim of the pay scale for the post of Professor.

(3.) The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 University and also by reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2- State Government and the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavits and even the University has also filed Additional Affidavit. The thrust of the contentions raised on behalf of the University and the Government in their reply affidavits is that the petitioners were not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of Professor as prescribed by the University and therefore, the petitioners cannot be made eligible for pay scale prescribed by the UGC and that the petitioners were in fact working on the post of Associate Professors and they were given the benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Associate Professor with benefit of revision of pay scale for the said post and the petitioners had exercised their option for such pay scales and even accepted the benefit of revision of pay scales for the said post with arrears. The contentions about delay, laches and res judicata are also raised by the respondents.