SUDHAKAR MALVIYAS Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises interesting question as the petitioner's grievance is that they were though recruited as Research Assistants in different branches of the University on various dates between 1963 and 1982 as mentioned in Annexure-1 but in actual practice after certain lapse of time, they have been working as Lecturers teaching the students, sharing the burden/load of teaching and still the respondents have not declared them as teachers to get pay scale of Rs. 700-1,600 w.e.f. 1.1.1973. Their further grievance is that demonstrators, tutors and persons of other categories have been declared by the respondent as teachers within the definition of Section 2 (i) of Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915. Their third grievance is that in Appendix-V which deals of scale of pay of various categories of staff of Banaras Hindu University teaching the staff only deals with categories of Professor. Reader, Lecturer, Instructors, Physical Instructors have been declared teachers and why there should be discrimination especially when there was no recruitment of Lecturers in Law Department and other departments and the University has been taking work from them. The petitioner made repeated representations to the University hut failed. This case started, in 1985 and Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16th December, 1996 remanded the writ petition to dispose of in accordance with law as the High Court dismissed the writ petition on a plea of alternative remedy.

(2.) Now coining over to brief facts of the case, it may be stated that the petitioners have filed the writ petition seeking the following prayers : " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 23.9.1982 and 26.4.1984 (Annexures-4 and 8 respectively to the writ petition) ; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to treat the petitioners as 'teacher' of the University and to grant the pay scale of Rs. 700-1,600 with effect from 1.1.1973 ; (iii) to issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (iv) award of the costs of the petition to the petitioners ; (v) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recommendations of the academic council of the University dated 6.3.1987 as contained in letter No. RAC/Mtg./AC 6387/1/86-87/3652, dated 26.4.87 of the Assistant Registrar of the University (Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit ; (vi) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioners salary in the scale available to lecturers of the University including consequential benefits from the date of their respective appointments."

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, so many developments took place and there was addition of grounds also more or less confining the quashing of recommendation of academic council not recommending their case for treating them teachers and academic council did not apply the mind while considering the case and its decision is based on irrelevant consideration and is liable to be quashed. It appears that petitioners except petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 are Ph.D in their subjects and are fully qualified. It also appears from the petition that posts of Research Assistant at the University are permanent post and in the cadre. The petitioners allege that while working as Research Assistants, they were assigned duty to set a paper for University examination, take part to organise symposium, etc. and they have been teaching the students as the Lecturers have been teaching, for example All India Legal Aid Seminar. They have been paying fund to the teachers welfare fund of the University. So their grievance in nut shell is though there is minor difference between their recruitment and of Lecturers which would be discussed later on but the University has been actually taking work from them as Lecturers and treating them so. Their further grievance is that the physical Instructor in the University takes no theory classes and imparts practical education only and on the contrary the Research Assistants are involved in teaching the theory of the respective subjects but still their case for declaration of teacher was not recommended by the academic council and it is arbitrary action. It is also alleged that they have been providing material and other-assistance of academic nature to the teaching staff besides performing the work of teaching and according to the petitioners that non-teaching staff classification is whimsical and artificial.