AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner who is working as Lecturer in Mathematics in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences under the first respondent, Mahatma Gandhi University, is aggrieved by the denial of UGC/AICTE scale of pay to her along with the attendant Career Advancement benefits.
The petitioner is having a total service of 14 years in the University. She was initially selected and appointed in the School of Applicable Mathematics as a Lecturer for a period of one year on contract basis with effect from 1.2.1995 as per Ext.P1. This was based on a selection by the statutory selection committee constituted as provided under Statute 4(b) of Chapter 3 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the appointment was from a select list prepared after a due process of selection. After the initial period of one year, it was being extended from time to time which is evidenced by Exts.P2 to P2(d), upto 5.2.2001. After the School of Applicable Mathematics was wound up, she was appointed in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences which is evidenced by Ext.P3 and P3(a). The tenure of the petitioner stands extended by the decision of the Syndicate evidenced by Ext.P4 until next decision. Ext.P4(a) is produced to show that her past service has been reckoned while fixing her remuneration.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even though some of the similarly situated teachers have been granted the UGC/AICTE scale of pay, the same benefit has not been extended to her. Ext.P5 is a true copy of the order of the University dated 26.6.2002 in favour of three teachers who, on completion of eight years'' of total service, out of which 4 = years'' continuous service in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences, were granted the said scale. Ext.P6 is in respect of another teacher, viz. Shri P.V. Anilkumar, in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences who is junior to the petitioner, but has been granted the scale of pay of Rs. 8000 - 13500 with effect from 1.1.2002. Even though the petitioner submitted an appropriate application, that was rejected by the Syndicate as per Ext.P9. Ext.P8(a) is the representation pending before the Vice Chancellor.
On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. The stand taken by the University in the counter affidavit is that the nature of appointment of the petitioner is on contract basis. After the School of Applicable Mathematics was wound up which was a self financing institution, she was appointed in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences on her request. It is further admitted that the appointment of teachers on contract basis is by inviting applications from the qualified candidates and after due process of screening and interview. It is also admitted in para 12 of the counter affidavit that contract service of SAM and STAS was taken together for the purpose of granting weightage of Rs. 100/- per year subject to a maximum of Rs. 500/- and for fixing consolidated remuneration to the petitioner. The grant of UGC/AICTE scale to three teachers, viz. Dr. Joji J. Anchanattu, Dr. S. Krishnakumar and Dr. N.V. Eldhose who are lecturers in STAS and to Shri P.V. Anilkumar is also admitted in the counter affidavit. It is stated that Ext.P8(a) is pending consideration. Mainly, it is contended that since the appointment of the petitioner is purely contractual, the Career Advancement envisaged under the UGC is not applicable to her.
In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced Exts.P11(a) and P11(b). Ext.P11(b) is a reply furnished on her application under the Right to Information Act.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the various circumstances stated by the petitioner, it is evident that there cannot be any distinction between teachers who have been granted the U.G.C. scale and the petitioner. One of the teachers, viz. Shri P.V. Anilkumar is her junior, as his total service is less than that of the petitioner. Attention is invited to Ext.P11(b) to show that in the reply itself it is admitted that the Lecturer Shri P.V. Anilkumar has got a total contract service of 11 years and 7 months as on 20.10.2006, the date on which U.G.C. scale of pay was granted to Shri Anilkumar which is less than the total service of 11 years and 8 months of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that as all the teachers are working on contract basis, the denial of the benefit to the petitioner alone is discriminatory.
It is clear from the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed by the University that all the appointments have been made on contract basis including that of the four lecturers mentioned above. It is clear from Ext.P5 that the University resolved to grant UGC/AICTE scale to Dr. Joji J. Anchanattu, Dr. S. Krishnakumar and Dr. N.V. Eldhose as they have eight years of service, out of which 4 = continuous service is in the School of Technology and Applied Sciences. Thus, the total service of those lecturers have been counted for the purpose of granting the benefit. Herein, the University contends for the position that as far as the petitioner is concerned, her case is not having any parallel with that of the other teachers. This appears to be incorrect. When, in respect of other teachers the total service is being counted, there cannot be any distinction as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is clear from the pleadings that Shri P.V. Anilkumar is having a total service less than that of the petitioner. But the said lecturer has been granted scale of pay of Rs. 8000 - 275 - 13500 with effect from 1.1.2002 as per Ext.P6. Again, by Ext.P7, Dr. Joji J. Anchanattu, Dr. S. Krishnakumar and Dr. N.V. Eldhose have been granted senior scale with effect from 1.1.2002. When all the above teachers have been appointed on contract basis, the contention raised by the respondents that since the appointment of the petitioner is on contract basis, there cannot be any grant of scale in her favour, is not justified. While considering the grant of weightage of Rs. 100/- and in fixing her consolidated remuneration, it is clear that her total service has been reckoned. This position is also admitted in the counter affidavit. If that be so, for considering her claim for grant of UGC/AICTE scale the total service should have been considered. When a junior in the same department is getting a higher scale, it amounts to discrimination to refuse to grant the same to a person who has got more length of service under the University.
For all these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P9 is quashed. It is clear from Ext.P6 order in favour of Shri P.V. Anilkumar that the same has been sanctioned by the Vice Chancellor pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15871/2006. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Vice Chancellor to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8(a) and grant due benefits to the petitioner in the light of the findings rendered above and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The monetary benefits also will be disbursed to the petitioner accordingly.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.