K K BANERJI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition raises a short issue. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer at University of Jodhpur w.e.f. 8th Sept., 1965. Thereafter against advertisement for the post of Reader, be applied and was selected by the selection committee and as per resolution of the Syndicate dated 20th Jan., 1979, the petitioner was appointed as Reader in the Department of Chemistry. The pay-scale of the post of Reader at the relevant time was Rs. 1200-1900. The post of Reader was a post of direct reqruitment and not a post of promotion. As a result of direct recruitment to the post of Reader, petitioner, who was drawing salary in the scale of Lecturer at Rs. 1,150/- p.m., was fixed at Rs. 1,200/-. However, one Dr. S.P. Garg, who was simultaneously selected by the very same selection committee but who was placed below the petitioner in order of merit, was given appointment on the post of Reader with a salary of Rs. 1,360/- in the same pay scale. Petitioner's case is that while he was higher in order of merit and, therefore, in the cadre of Reader, he would rank senior to Dr. S.P. Garg, yet he was fixed at a lower salary in the same pay scale which has resulted in anomalous situation. It is further contended that to meet out such anomalous situation where a person lower in merit is granted higher pay under the rules for some reason then the person who is higher in merit in the same selection, a provision for stopping-up pay was made by the Syndicate through adopting resolution dated 22nd October, 1972, which reads as under:

(2.) The controversy which has arisen in the case is because of the use of the words "departmental candidate" in the resolution. While the petitioner contends that since the post of a Reader is a post of direct recruitment and apart from promotion scheme where there is an appointment by selection, there is nothing like departmental candidate and outsider candidate and in reality the resolution is to remove the anomaly which arises on account of giving higher pay to a person lower in merit in the same pay scale than a person placed higher in order of merit and this principle should be applied to the case of the petitioner irrespective of the fact whether candidature is departmental or outsider.

(3.) On the other hand, respondent contends that the aforesaid resolution only comes into operation in a situation where out of the two appointees, one appointee Is a department candidate in the sense that he was previously employee of the Jodhpur University itself and Anr. candidate who is given higher pay inspite of being lower In merit than the status of departmental candidate being higher in merit is protected by stepping up his pay to that which was allowed to person lower in merit.