(1.) THE Primary ground on which this writ petition has been pressed is the alleged infraction of Art. 26 of the Constitution of India. Consequently it suffices to advert mainly to the facts relevant to this issue.
(2.) THE three petitioners are Lecturers in the Khalsa College, Amritsar, which is averred to be an Institution established for the last fifty years by the Sikh community with the object of propagating and conserving the culture, heritage and tradition of the said community. In the wake of the recommendations of the kothari Commission it was decided that the grades of the private college lecturers should be revised with effect from the 1st of November, 1966, and three revised grades of Rs. 300-600; Rs. 400-800; and Rs. 700-1100 were introduced. The seniority list of the Lecturers of the Khalsa College, Amritsar, has been attached as annexure 'a' to the petition and it is averred that the three petitioners rank senior therein to respondent No. 4 Darshan Singh Sarin. It is admitted that as a result of the upgrading of the pay scales of the College Lecturers consequent upon the recommendation of the Kothari Commission, the additional expenditure was to be borne by the Government in the shape of a grant for a number of years. The respondent-State of Punjab and the Director of Public Instruction issued instructions regarding the manner in which the revised grades were to be given to the Lecturers and copies of these instructions are annexures 'b' and 'c' to the petition. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by annexure 'c' and the relevant portion thereof around which the argument has revolved is in these terms:-"the Government of Punjab is pleased to substitute clause (II) of Para 2 of the Punjab Government Memo. No. 4/spl. dated the 2nd February, 1968, as under:- (xi) The entitlement to the revised scale of Rs. 400-800 will be on the basis of seniority as determined by the length of service of a person in the college has working on 1st November, 1966. However, exception may be made in the cases of persons recruited from outside who have joined on a salary higher than the minimum in which case total service as a college lecturer will be taken into account. ILLUSTRATION. x x x x" the particular grouse of the petitioners is that the exception provided in the above said instructions in case of persons who were on a salary higher than the minimum was contrary to the pre-existing College Rules and has the adverse effect of rendering Lecturers junior to the petitioners as senior to them on its basis. It is averred that respondent No. 4 had earlier served the S. D. College, Pathankot, from the 10th of July, 1958, to the 24th of June, 1959, and thereafter he served in the Khalsa College, Amritsar, from the 18th January, 1960 to 22nd July, 1961. Thereafter, he joined the S. D. College, Barnala, and worked therein from the 23rd july, 1961, to the 15th January, 1963, and finally joined the Khalsa College on the 18th of January, 1963, where he continued to serve. It is the petitioners' case that if the continuos length of service of respondent No. 4 is counted only from the 18th January, 1963, he would rank junior to all the petitioners but in view of the directions of the State Government in Annexure 'c', respondent No. 4's earlier service in other institutions has also been taken into account thereby ranking him as senior to them.
(3.) IT is then averred that the College authorities granted the revised grade of Rs. 400-800 to the petitioner No. 2 Kulwant Singh with effect from the 16th July, 1969, and that they were inclined to ignore the instructions in annexure 'c'. Respondent No. 4 Darshan Singh is alleged to have approached the Director of public Instruction who passed the order dated the 22nd April, 1971, withdrawing the revised grade from Shri Kulwant Singh petitioner and granting the same to respondent No. 4 with retrospective effect vide annexure 'd'. Thereafter the petitioners being aggrieved by the above said order represented to the Director, public Instruction vide annexure 'e' but no decision thereon has been vouchsafed to them. Consequently by way of this writ petition they have challenged the relevant part of Annexure 'c' and also Annexure 'd' abovesaid.