(1.) The petitioner challenges the communication issued by the Chandigarh Administration to the Director Public Instructions insofar as it makes possible the extension of selection grades only to Lecturers, who had completed 15 years of service in the particular cadre of the respective college and when the work and conduct of the officer shall be satisfactory as a whole.
(2.) The petitioner's grievance is that he had been transferred on a resolution of the Managing Committee made on 29.05.1976, and the rule of seniority specifically spells out that when a teacher transferred from one college to another at the instance of the DAV College Management Committee, the seniority of the teacher shall be protected. A further reliance was made on the earlier instructions of the Education Commissioner to the Director Public Instructions, Punjab dated 02.02.1968 that spells out the entitlement to the revised scales would be on the basis of seniority as determined by the length of service of the person in the college and the exception would be where a person is "recruited from outside, who had joined on a salary higher than the minimum", in which case, the total service as a college lecturer would be taken into account. The contention is that on account of transfer to DAV College, Chandigarh, he drew a salary higher than the minimum and the instruction that required the total service as college lecturer to be reckoned would apply to him.
(3.) The college itself could not be stated at fault since they were bound by the Government instructions. I find the impugned instructions are totally arbitrary. The exception, which is provided in the Punjab Government Memo dated 02.02.1968 issued by the Education Commissioner to Director Public Instructions ought to continue and the instructions that denies to the petitioner a right to claim his seniority by taking the period of service in yet another college under the same Administration, cannot be denied.