Gayatri Singh vs Director of Higher Education & Ors.

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 1761996 Annexure 12 to the writ petition and the order dated 1311993 Annexure 9A to the writ petition and quashing the condition of one year period in subclause ''cha'' of the GO dated 3061992 Annexure 9 to the petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to fix the senior scale of the petitioner from 991985 taking into account the service as ad hoc lecturer from 991985 till 1981986.

The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in the institution in question on 991985 vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition and thereafter she was selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and her name was recommended vide order dated 1481986 to the Manager of the College, i.e. Ishwar Saran Degree College, Allahabad vide Annexure 4 to the petition. In pursuance of this recommendation, the Committee of Management of the college issued a fresh appointment letter dated 2081986 Annexure 5 to the petition. Since then the petitioner has been continuing as a regular lecturer from 2081986 and was confirmed by the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 291991 w.e.f. 141991. True copy of the confirmation letter is Annexure 6.

In paragraph 15 of the petition it is stated that the payscale of the teachers was revised by GO letter dated 1041987. The petitioner claims senior scale from 991985 i. e. the date of her initial appointment as ad hoc lecturer but she received a letter dated 1311993 (Annexure 9A) stating that her service as ad hoc lecturer cannot be taken into consideration for grant of senior scale as the period of service as ad hoc lecturer is less than one year. The petitioner made a representation against this order but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 1761996. Hence this petition.

In the counteraffidavit it is stated in paragraph 3 (g) that the petitioner''s ad hoc service is less than one year and hence could not be taken into consideration in view of the GO dated 3061992 and hence she was awarded the senior scale of lecturer on the basis of her service beginning from 2081986.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid condition in Clause 4 in the GO dated 3061992 is arbitrary and discriminatory since a lecturer serving in ad hoc capacity appointed on the same day but selected by the Higher Education Commission after one year would get the benefit of senior scale from the date of his initial appointment while that benefit would not be available to the lecturer who was selected by the Commission before the expiry of one year. Hence, he urged that a person selected later would be better off than the person selected earlier.

In the rejoinderaffidavit in paragraph 22 reference has been made by the petitioner to one Suman Agarwal was selected by the Higher Education Commission in 1988, that is much after petitioner''s selection in 1986, but by virtue of the impugned GO dated 3061992 she has been given selection grade from 2991990 while the petitioner has been given that grade from 2081991. Dr. Suman Agarwal has also been treated as senior to the petitioner and has been promoted as Reader w.e.f. 3171999. In our opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is a clear discrimination against the petitioner because person selected in a regular capacity by the Commission after one year of his/her ad hoc appointment will get benefit of the GO dated 3061992 on senior scale from the date of ad hoc appointment whereas the petitioner who was selected by the Commission prior to completion of one year of ad hoc appointment is denied that benefit merely because the petitioner did not complete one year ad hoc service. Hence, in our opinion Clause 1 (cha) of the GO dated 3061992 is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, we quash Clause 1 (cha) of the GO dated 3061992 and we set aside the impugned order dated 1311993 and 1761996. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to fix the senior scale of the petitioner from 99l()85 and pay her all benefits including arrears within three months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.

The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.