PRANATI MODA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this court for allowing her to enjoy the University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scale of lecturer/sr. lecturer/lecture selection grade with effect from 5.2.1992 with actual financial benefits, for considering her absorption to the said post of lecturer as per UGC recommendation in the Government College of Education with UGC pay scale attached to the post with effect from 5.2.1992 and for setting aside the memorandum No. F.6(9-l)DYAS/CON/2000/2281-3225 dated 4.6.2001 transferring her to the West District Youth Affairs and Sports Office, College Tilla, Agartala.

(2.) The material facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as class-Ill staff (primary teacher) on 28.4.1964. Therefore by the order dated 11.11.1965, she was appointed to the post of Instructor (Physical Education) and was subsequently placed in the post of Graduate Physical Instructor in the pay scale of 125-200/- with effect from 24.9.1968. By the order dated 9.1.1976, the petitioner was redesignated as Junior Coach in the pay scale of Graduate Physical Instructor. The petitioner was subsequently, confirmed to the post Physical Instructor with effect from 9.11.1967 by the order dated 25.4.1974. Thereafter, she was placed in the selection grade of Physical Instructor "Senior Coach" with effect from 9.8.1988. It would appear that by the memorandum No. F.7(151-4)DHE/87(L) dated 2.1.1992, the service of the petitioner was placed in the Government College of Education, Agartala with her existing pay scale with admissible allowances until further orders. It was stipulated in the said order that her pay and allowances would be drawn and disbursed from the Head of Government Colleges and Institutions viz. "2002-General Education, 02-Secondary Education, 306-Teachers training, 1-Salaries (non-plan)". The petitioner obtained BA degree in 1968, MA degree in Physical Education in 1976 and B.Ed in the year 1996-97 with first class. The petitioner also obtained teacher's Certificate in Physical Education in 1965, the degree of Master of Physical Education in 1980 with first class from University of Madras and Diploma in Coaching in 1974. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since she was placed in the Government College of Education, she has been performing and discharging all the duties and responsibilities of Asstt. Professor of the College in question and in recognition of her service, the Principal of the college issued a certificate dated 25.3.1996 certifying that she has been teaching Physical Education method and contest paper including teaching practical of the subject and that she was performing all the duties expected as Physical Education teacher. The Principal further certified therein that she was also teaching the above papers which was expected to be taught by a regular Asstt. Professor of a college since the college does not have any Asstt. Professor in physical education. The petitioner also claims that she has written a course material on physical education for the Tripura University which has been published by the Tripura University as the approved text book for the course of Bachelor of Education. According to the petitioner, even though she has bee discharging the duties of Asstt. Professor (now. re-designated as a lecturer/selection grade) she is given the pay scale of a Senior Coach while she is entitled to the pay scale of lecturer/ senior lecturer/lecturer selection grade by following the principles of "equal pay for equal work". It is also the case of the petitioner that as early as 1994, she submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 claiming the benefit of the pay scale of the post of lecturer/senior lecturer/ lecturer selection grade for performing of the duties and responsibilities of the aforesaid post with effect from 5.2.1992, but her claim has been denied till now. The petitioner also claims that she is entitled to be appointed to the post of lecturer/senior lecturer/lecturer selection grade in a substantive capacity with effect from 5.2.1992. It is the specific case of the petitioner that her case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.9.1988 passed by this case in Civil Rule Nos. 50, 51, 52 of 1981 and Civil Rule No. 301 of 1980 and, as such, she submits that she is entitled to the same relief granted in the aforesaid cases.

(3.) It may be noticed that the writ petition was subsequently amended by the petitioner incorporating subsequent development. In the amended writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that by the order dated 4.6.2001 issued by the Director, Youth Affairs & Sports i.e. the respondent No. 3 transferred her from her present place of posting to the West District Youth Affairs and Sports Office, College Tilla, Agartala. It is claimed by the petitioner that the transfer order was issued with mala fide intention and for the sole purpose of frustrating her claim for absorption as lecturer/senior lecturer/lecturer selection grade in a Government College and that the transfer order was not issued in public interest inasmuch as there is no function for her in the West District Youth Affairs and Sport Office, College Tilla, Agartala. It is asserted by the petitioner that after the creation of the Directorate of Youth Affairs and Sports, her service was allocated to the Directorate of Higher Education and was under the control of the Principal, Government College of Teachers Education which is under the Directorate of Higher Education. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is arbitrary and illegal and is violative of the statutory provision since except for the Head of Department or appointing authority no other authority is authorised to issue such transfer order and as such the transfer order dated 4.6.2001 is liable to be quashed. The petitioner also contends that a similarly situated person like Sri Moloy Kumar Saha who was assistant teacher of Pollymongal H.S. School, Agartala was absorbed as a lecturer in Bengali in pursuance of the said judgment dated 24.9.1988 vide notification dated 17.11.1995. According to the petitioner, she has been subjected to hostile discrimination, which is violative of her fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India.