NARENDRA MANOHARRAO AMBADKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE petitioners before us have challenged the judgment delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 719 of 1997 on 15.1.1999 rejecting their prayer for direction to respondents to extend to them the pay0scale of Rs. 3700 -5700 by treating them as Head of the Department. It is not in dispute that all five petitioners have been duly selected and appointed as Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College under respondents No. 1 and 2 prior to 20th September 1989.

(2.) MR Dangre while advancing the cause of petitioner has contended that only defence before the Tribunal raised by respondents No. 1 and 2 was that post of Workshop Superintendent is not a teaching post. He points out that norms issued by respondent No. 3 All India Council for Technical Education constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Act") were not in dispute and its binding effect was shown by respondent No. 3 even before the Tribunal. He has invited attention to those norms as in the year 1990 to urge that by its perusal, there is no scope for doubt that post of Workshop Superintendent has been treated as equivalent to the post of Head of the Department or then of Senior Lecturer (Selection grade) and pay scale for them is Rs. 37005700. He has also pointed out the relevant clauses to substantiate his contention and to show that Workshop Superintendent has been placed in the cadre of Head of the Department. Job description of a Lecturer and of Workshop Superintendent is also read out for this purpose. Contention is that this material on record has not been looked into by respondent No. 5 Tribunal.

(3.) IN the light of this material, order of the Tribunal dated 5.1.1999 is also read out and it is contended that the Judgment of Honourable Apex Court has not been appreciated at all. It is further contended that the fact that petitioners were duly qualified and, therefore, were selected and have been appointed as Workshop Superintendent prior to 20th September 1989 or its impact in present matter is totally lost sight of by the Tribunal. It is contended that letters of AICTE mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of its order were, therefore, not relevant at all. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of T.N. & anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational and ors. reported at : (1995) 4 SCC 104 to show that AICTE is the only authorised and competent body to decide not only qualification but also pay structure and the State Government cannot avoid its responsibility to implement the norms prescribed by it. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to preamble of 1987 Act and mandatory provision Section 10 thereof with contention that the subjects mentioned in clause IV of Section 10 are only illustrative. It is contended that it is the exclusive privilege of AICTE to take all steps for ensuring coordination and integrated development of technical education and norms fixed by it, therefore, deserve primacy. The provisions in Section 22 conferring rulemaking power, Section 23 authorises AICTE to frame Regulations and requirement in Section 24 to lay rules and regulations before the Parliament, are also pressed into service for said purpose.