J C SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ petition Nos. 17959 of 1991 and 12044 of 1992. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition 17959 of l991.

(2.) Petitioners, J.C. Sharma and others through present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seek writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak-respondent No. 3 to re-designate/promote them as Lecturers with effect from December 1, 1988 without awaiting any approval from the Director, Technical Education, Haryana-respondent NO. 2. In case the relief aforesaid is granted, they also pray that they be granted consequential benefits.

(3.) The facts on which the relief aforesaid, rests, reveal that petitioners have done three years diploma in Engineering in their respective branches after matriculation. They are all working as Demonstrators with Vaish Technical Institute since 1975 except Shri H.C. Sharma, petitioner No. 4, who was appointed in 1978 and Shri V.C. Gupta, petitioner No. 5, who was appointed in the year 1979. Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak is stated to be an aided institute as it receives 95% aid from the State Government, which is owned and funded by the Vaish Education Society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society, it is pleaded, had entered into an agreement with the Government of punjab on September 15, 1966 setting the terms and conditions by which the Government and the Society had to jointly develop the institute. The control and management of the institute vests with the Managing Committee which was then to consist of eight members but not it consists of eleven members known as Board of Governors. There are four members nominated by the Vaish Education Society, one member nominated by the Government of Haryana, one representative of the Northern Region Office, Kanpur and two staff representatives. Inasmuch as the Institute is aided to the extent of 95% and the State aalso exercises control over the same, it is pleaded that it is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The control and management of the Institute vests in the Board of Governors. However, the strength of the teaching staff, their pay scales and qualifications have to be in accordance with the standard prescribed by the Government of Punjab now Government of Haryana. At the time when petitioners were recruited in service, the pattern of staff structure in the Polytechnics was Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor/lecturer/Head of the Department and Principal. In the year 1972 the All India council for Technical Education had constituted Madan Committee for laying down the guidelines for revision of staff structure in the Engineering/Technical Institutions. The said committee gave its recommendations in the year 1979 which were approved by the All India Council in the same year. The Government of Haryana also adopted the said recommendations in the year 1981. As per the recommendations of the Committee the staff structure for the Polytechnic Lecturer was revised as Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/head of the Department and Principal and degree in Engineering was made essential qualification for appointment to these posts whereas prior to that diploma holders/I.T.I. were also eligible to be appointed as Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors and further promoted as lecturers etc. The Vaish Technical Institute also adopted the recommendations of the Madan Committee and the same became effective w.e.f. December 1, 1988 as it was from that date that the staff structure was changed and thee posts of Demonstrator were abolished. At the said committee had finished the cadre of Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors, there arose a practical problem as to how the Demonstrators and Drawing Instructors were to be accommodated. The committee had also made degree in Engineering as essential qualification for being designated/absorbed as Lecturer. All the Demonstrators/Drawing Instructors who were working in the Government Polytechnics at that time were either those who had degree qualification or those who were AMIEs or those who were diploma holders (Matriculation plus three years Diploma in Engineering) or those who were certificate holders from the Industrial Training Institutions (ITIs) i.e. Matric plus two years training. Insofar as the first category of degree holders was concerned, they were immediately absorbed/designated as Lecturers in view of the recommendations made by the Madan Committee. Since AMIEs were also treated as equivalent to degree holders, they were also absorbed. In the case of some diploma holders, the State of Haryana sent them to the Teachers Training Institute, Chandigarh for getting 1-1/2 years training by giving them leave and all others benefits. After those persons had been trained, they too were absorbed as lecturer. The positive case of petitioners is that each and every dip-loma holder/Demonstrator/Drawing Instructor was given the said training and was absorbed/redesignated as lecturer. Insofar as the ITI certificate holders were concerned, they were also absorbed as lecturers by relaxing the qualifications in their cases. It is only the petitioners who have been left out to be absorbed/designated whereas, it is pleaded, all others have since been absorbed as lecturers either on the strength of their qualifications or by relaxing the rules. Petitioners made representation in the year 1987 that they should also be sent for ill! training at Chandigarh for 1-1/2 years so that they could also be considered for promotion as lecturers. They had not been sent for training on account of the fact that the respondent No. 3 at that time had no training reserved staff and on account of non-availability of leave. For the abovesaid reasons petitioners continued to do their jobs and could not go for training. The Principal of the Institute recommended their case for promotion vide letter dated April 15, 1987. When the matter, however, came before the Director, Technical Education, Haryana, for approval, he in turn wrote back to the Principal that before further action could be taken in the matter, the same should be placed before the Board of Governors. The Board, thus, in its meeting held on May 27,1988 considered their case and recommended that they he sponsored to the Engineering College, Murthal/Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra for improving their qualifications so that they could also be promoted as lecturer. The matter was sent to the Government for approval vide letter dated October 29,1988 by the Principal. However, the Government did not do anything in the matter, thus constraining the petitioners once again to represent their case before the Director, Technical Education, who asked for detailed comments of the Board of Management. In response thereto, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to the Director saying that the petitioners should be considered for promotion on the basis of their experience or they be sent to the Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra for meeting their qualifications. Respondent No. 2, however, did not approve the sending of petitioners to improve their qualifications and in this manner the matter regarding their promotion kept on hanging fire for want of approval. However, the Principal of the College wrote letter to respondent Nos. 21 expedite the matter. Petitioners, in the wake Oi the circumstances aforesaid, then made representation to the Government of Haryana. Meanwhile, the Principal of the College once again addressed letter to the Director-respondent No. 2 on February 5, 1989 recommending that petitioners should be promoted/redesignated to the posts of lecturer as they were already working as such and it would not involve any additional financial burden on the Institute. In response to the letter aforesaid, the Government informed the institute that the decision in this matter is not to be taken by it but has to be taken by the Board itself. The Principal, in response to the letter aforesaid informed the Director that the posts of lecturer were lying vacant in the College and, therefore, petitioners should be promoted. However the matter was placed before the Board in its meeting held on January 12, 1991 which decided to recommend to the Government that petitioner be promoted as lecturers on the basis of their experience by relaxing qualifications. Item No. 42.9 dealing with the matter aforesaid and the decision as was taken, reads thus:-