LAWS(P&H)-1991-12-164

R L SHARMA Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

Decided On December 18, 1991
Dr. R.L. Sharma Appellant
V/S
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service with the respondent University w.e.f. April 27, 1971 as a Cartographer in Geography after due selection by a competent committee in the basic scale of pay of Rs. 300-25-600 which was equivalent to the grade of a Lecturer. On revision of pay scales of lecturers, the petitioner too, though working against the post of Cartographer, was granted the benefit of the revised scale. The revision of pay scale of the petitioner was apparently made at his request as would be apparent from Annexure P3 dated May 17, 1977 by which the case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Head of the Department to the Registrar of the University for favourable consideration. It would be apparent from Annexure P3 itself that as far back as in the year 1977, it had been recorded by the Head of the Department that the post of Cartographer was academic in nature and that the petitioner had been covering about 16 hours teaching workload in the department for 4 years prior to 1977. The petitioner thereafter made another representation to the University Authorities requesting that the designation of the post he was holding be changed from that of Cartographer to a Lecturer in Cartography as he was getting the same scale of pay as Lecturer and performing similar duties. A committee duly appointed by the Vice Chancellor to examine the matter, opined vide report dated July 23, 1983, Annexure P2 to the petition that the request be acceded to (though with effect from the decision of the Executive Council) as the petitioner was already in the pay scale of a Lecturer and also doing some teaching work. It was also suggested that the petitioner would continue working as per his present duties and in addition to practical classes, he be given teaching work of more than 6 hours a week by the department, if necessary. The matter was, thereafter, put before the Executive Council on Oct. 10, 1983 which accepted the recommendation with the condition that the redesignated post would be an ex-cadre one. The petitioner thereafter made another request to the authorities praying that he be allowed all the benefits that were available to lecturers in the University teaching departments and on an appraisal, the Executive Council in its meeting held on 3.8.1987 (minutes whereof are appended as Annexure P4 to the petition), resolved that the request of the petitioner be accepted. One of the considerations that weighed with the Executive Council was that similar facilities had previously been granted to other Persons similarly situated. It has been averred by the petitioner that in 1983 a scheme known as the Personal Promotion Scheme (hereinafter called the old scheme) was introduced by the respondent University in accordance with the directions of the University Grants Commission with the object of checking stagnation and to encourage academic pursuits and excellence in the University. A copy of the scheme has been appended as Annexure P5 to the petition. The petitioner thereafter approached the Vice Chancellor of the University and requested that the period of his service from 1971 to 1983 be treated for consideration for purpose of promotion under the old scheme. The Vice Chancellor accordingly made a recommendation to the Executive Council suggesting that the request of the petitioner be accepted as he had continued to perform duties similar to those of regular Lecturers. The matter was put before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 26.7.1989, vide agenda appended as Annexure P8 to the petition. The relevant extract from the aforesaid annexure which is illustrative of the way the case had been dealt with, is quoted below:-

(2.) It is to be highlighted that during the pendency of this writ petition, Civil Misc. No. 5798 of 1990 was moved by the petitioner that if any person was sought to be promoted as Reader, his case should also be considered taking into account the period of service rendered by him from April 27, 1971 to Oct. 10, 1983. Vide order dated June 8, 1990, the respondents were directed to consider the name of the petitioner also for promotion to the post of Reader, if any promotion was made during the pendency of the petition by taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner with effect from April 27, 1971. It was directed that any order passed by the respondents would be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. This order was made absolute on July 25, 1990 in the presence of the counsel for the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner moved Civil Misc. No. 6269/1990 in which it was prayed that a new Scheme called the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter called the new scheme) had been formulated by the respondents in 1989 and his case for promotion should be considered under this scheme as well. The respondents were again directed vide interim orders dated 25.7.1990 of this Court to consider the name of the petitioner for the post of Reader under the new scheme although it was again clarified that any order passed by the respondents would be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondents took a number of dates to file a reply and on their failure to do so, the interim order aforesaid was made absolute by this Court on Sept. 12, 1990. The respondent University thereafter filed C.M. No. 8823 of 1990 in C.M. No. 6269 of 1990 praying that the reply could not be filed in the C.M earlier due to a mistake and as the reply was now being filed, C.M. No. 6269 of 1990 be listed again for hearing. Vide order dated Jan. 11, 1991 this Court declined to make any modification in the order dated 25th July, 1990, but a direction was given that the case be listed for hearing in the month of Feb., 1991. It will be apparent from a reading of the aforesaid orders that the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the old and the new schemes, but despite the directions having been emphatically given, it is admitted before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that no further decision has been taken in the matter. He attributes the inaction on the part of the respondents to the fact that as the present writ petition was pending before this Court, the University Authorities thought it prudent to await its decision.

(3.) In the reply to C.M. No. 6269/1990 in which the petitioner had claimed that his case for promotion be considered under the new scheme, the respondents have taken the stand that the present writ petition had become infructuous as the petitioner had sought consideration for promotion under the new scheme as per his option exercised by the petitioner vide Annexure R8. It has been admitted that the case of the petitioner under the old scheme had not been considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting dated May 11, 1990 as the present writ petition was pending. It has also been stated that the case of the petitioner would be considered under the old scheme after the decision rendered by the High Court on this writ petition.