VISHNU KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioners Vishnu Kumar and K.K. Agarwal, who are working on the post of Senior Lecturer and are presently posted at Government Khaitan Polytechnic College, Jaipur and Government Polytechnic College, Neemrana, Alwar. Petitioners were initially appointed as such on ad hoc basis vide order dated 1.10.1993. However, it was thereafter that they were selected on regular basis by RPSC and were appointed by order dated 13.12.1995.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 present in person contends that the All India Council for Technical Education (for short -'AICTE') established under the Act of 1987 vide its notification dated 10.9.1989 provided for revision of pay scale of Teachers of Technical Institutions (Polytechnic) according to which a Lecturer on completion of eight years service on a particular post was entitled to promotion under Career Advancement Scheme. Petitioners were entitled to benefits of revised pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986. The Cabinet of the State on 18.9.1998 took a decision to adopt AICTE guidelines for revised pay scale and Career Advancement Scheme for teaching staff of the Government Polytechnic Colleges. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale for Government Polytechnic College Teachers) Rules, 1999 were promulgated pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the cabinet. It was thereafter that AICTE on 30.12.1999 issued order recommending 5th Revised Pay Scales and service conditions of teachers of Technical Institution (Diploma) to be made effective from 1.1.1996. The Government in the Rules of 1999 did not provide Career Advancement Scheme for teaching staff of Polytechnic Colleges and the Rules were not amended as per the guidelines of the AICTE. The government applied the 4th AICTE Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1999 with effect from 1.9.1996 instead of 1.1.1986. Petitioners then filed writ petition No. 1362/2001. The Government then introduced Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale to Government Polytechnic Teachers) Rules, 2001 with effect from 1.9.1996 and accordingly the fixation of the pay of the petitioner No. 1 was made vide order dated 26.12.2001 at Rs.8,275 as on 1.9.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.8000 -13500. Petitioners was promoted from the post of Lecturer to Senior Lecturer vide order dated 25.10.2007. The Rajasthan Technical Education (Engineering) Service Rules, 2010 were promulgated with effect from 1.9.1996.

(3.) THE selection committee was constituted vide order dated 25.1.2011 meeting of which was conducted on 27.1.2011. The said Committee declined to recommend the case of the petitioners on the premise that they have already got the promotion on the post of Senior Lecturer in the year 2007. In doing so, the Committee wrongly interpreted the proviso to clause 1.1 of the order dated 1.9.2010. However, a contextual interpretation has to be given to the said proviso whether incumbent has already been granted promotion on the date he otherwise becomes due for grant of selection scale/senior scale under the Career Advancement Scheme. In other words, it was to be seen whether the petitioners got promotion on the post of Senior Lecturer or not on the date on which they were otherwise entitled to senior scale. As it is, the respondents have introduced the Career Advancement Scheme in different Technical Education Department with delay of 14 years. The effect of the aforesaid erroneous interpretation taken of the section scale was that petitioners started receiving lessor pay qua their three juniors with effect from 1st September, 2010. While their juniors were granted the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme from the post of Lecturer to Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the year 2001 due to fortuitous circumstance that they did not get the promotion till 27.1.2011, the petitioners were made to suffer only because in between they were granted promotion. Double different yardsticks have been adopted by the respondents. Certain employees who were senior to the petitioners like Vivek Saksena and Rajendra Kumar Tank were declined promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer on the ground that they got promotion to senior scale prior to the required date of CAS under scheme. But, such benefit was denied to the petitioners as well, even though they were granted such promotion prior to the date benefit under the Career Advancement Scheme became due to them. Due to not providing clause of counting ad hoc services rendered without break for the purpose of computing the period of service under Career Advancement Scheme, such benefit has been delayed by two years.