AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagdish Bhalla, J.—The two writ petitions raise the same question of fact and law and hence are being disposed of by this common judgment.
By means of these two writ petitions, the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent to pay University Grant Commission pay scale i.e. Rs. 2,200-4,000 and all other admissible benefits which the permanent Lecturers are getting and have also prayed for the quashing of the Government Order dated 22.7.1986 contained in Annexure No. 3 to Writ Petition No. 4812 of 1988, by which a novel method has been adopted by the State Government by calling upon the qualified unemployed teachers to work on voluntary basis for taking Lecturers in the classes. This has been done by the State Government for the reason that there are vacancies of Lecturers. In Writ Petition No. 4812 of 1988, one prayer is with regard to continuation of the Petitioners till regular selections are being made by the U.P. Public Services Commission. However, in the other writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 27683 of 1993 instead of above prayer, it has been prayed that the Respondent may not hold selection on the post on which the Petitioners are working in pursuance of the advertisement contained in Annexure-12 of that writ petition.
It has been submitted that since 1971 and till date, admittedly less than 50 appointments have been made in Colleges where at the present 450 vacancies are lying vacant. The U.P. Public Services Commission made an advertisement in the year 1981 but the said advertisement was cancelled and no selection could be held. The ad hoc teachers in the Government Degree Colleges and Post-Graduate Colleges have been regularised in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred as to the Regularisation Rules, 1979). The State Government under the aforesaid Regularisation Rules, 1979 again regularised all the ad hoc Lecturers working in the Government Colleges who were given appointment on or before 1.5.1983. Thus, 307 teachers under the Regularisation Rules, 1979 (Amended Rules 1981) were regularised. Since 450 ad hoc teachers were regularised, therefore, the State Government In order to deny the benefit of regularisation to the ad hoc teachers, started a new practice of giving appointments only for 120 days and after artificial breaks, fresh appointments were issued to those teachers. The Ad Hoc teachers appointed for 120 days approached this Court by means of several writ petitions and some of them directly approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Garhwal Region Students Union of Government Degree Colleges also approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP arising out of the judgments of this Court as also in the matter of Garhwal Region Students Union of Government Degree Colleges directed the State Government to fill all the vacancies immediately.
It has been emphatically argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that to circumvent the orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court instead of filling-up the vacancies and with a view to deny the benefits of regularisations to ad hoc teachers, a novel method was adopted by the State Government by callingupon unemployed educated qualified youth to come forward voluntarily and accept giving lectures at the rate of Rs. 15 per lecture with a rider of minimum of 12 lectures and maximum of 18 lectures per week which was subsequently amended by a Government Order to a minimum of 18 lectures and maximum of 21 lectures. This, accordingly to learned Counsel for the Petitioners, straightaway amounts to engaging qualified youth as teachers to deprive them of the status, pay scale and feeling of security of being permanent lecturers/teachers. It has been argued that this action of the Government amounts to exploiting the unemployed youth to accept something better than to be unemployed.
We are of the view that no Government particularly a Welfare State, and India being a Welfare State, can even think of formulating such a plan. We are further of the view that despite the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in SLP (Civil) 9569 of 1983 and 6906 of 1983 directing the State Government to take immediate steps to fill-up the vacancies against which some of the Petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules through the Public Service Commission, the Stale Government instead of filling-up the vacancies in accordance with law, has encouraged ad hocism which has been deprecated by the Apex Court, thereby a wrong has been done by the Respondent by inviting applications from the trained graduate to act like a daily-wager on voluntary basis. It has been directed by the Apex Court that Petitioners who are working on such posts whether under orders of the Court or otherwise shall continue to hold the post on ad hoc basis till the vacancies are filled-up and they shall cease to hold the post immediately on regular appointments being made any salary will be paid up-to date.
The Petitioners are still working as teachers in their institutions and are being paid wages according to Government Order dated 22.7.1986.
The State Government in exercise of powers conferred by the provisions of the Regularisation Rules, 1979, which Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, regularised the services of such teachers who were directly appointed before 1.1.1977 and had completed three years of service and, thus, had become entitled for regularisation of their services, without facing the selection committee and no advertisement was issued. They simply applied and were appointed by the Principals of the institutions as and when vacancies had occurred in the College. Thereafter the State Government again amended the Regularisation Rules, 1979 in which Clause 9 has been added through Notification. The said Clause 9 reads as under:
Rule 9.-The provisions of these rule shall apply, mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before May 1, 1983 and continuing in service as such as the date of commencement of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of the Public Services Commission (Amendment) Rules, 1984.
Thus, under the amended rules, all these ad hoc lecturers who have been appointed prior to 1.5.1983 and were working on the date of amendment had been given benefit of regularisation.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of ad hocism in the case reported in Rabinarayan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1286 . In said judgment, the Apex Court directed the State of Orissa to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularisation. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned standing counsel that the Scheme under which the Petitioners have been appointed is a voluntary scheme and it is upon the incumbent to come forward and accept the voluntary teaching scheme for which they would be paid according to lectures. The further argument of the learned standing counsel that it does not give any right to the Petitioners on the post in question is also misconceived. We are of the view that the writ petitions were filed way back in 1988 and 1993 and interim orders were granted and the Petitioners are still working as such and earlier also ad hoc teachers were appointed whose services were regularised in due course of time and atleast the Petitioners have a right to be considered for regularisation. In a number of cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has indicated equal pay for equal work and has directed the concerned authorities for making payment of same emoluments to the Incumbents working in the organization, starting with the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . In the case reported in Dhirendra Chamoli and Another Vs. State of U.P., , certain casual labourers working in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution with a grievance that their wages be equated alongwith the wages of regular similarly situated employees in service. The Hon''ble Supreme Court issued its hope and trust that the posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in different Kendras so that the persons may be regularised and it was further indicated in the judgment that it is not at all desirable that the management and particularly the Central Government should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years. Thereafter, again such matters were considered by the Apex Court in various cases, e.g., Surinder Singh and Another Vs. Engineer-in-chief, C.P.W.D. and Others, ; R.D. Gupta and Others Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. and Others, and Bhagwan Dass and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and the Hon''ble Supreme Court re-affirmed its earlier views. Thereafter, in the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana. (1988) 3 SCC 354. It reiterated its earlier view with regard to equal pay for equal work on the ground of nature of work irrespective whether the incumbent was working on permanent or temporary post. Similarly, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others, , has held that in matters of appointment, even apprentice has a right to be considered on preferential basis as compared to new Incumbent.
In the premise, we are of the view that the Government Order dated 22.7.1986 is liable to be quashed and the Petitioners are entitled atleast the minimum pay scale in the regular pay scale for lecturers teaching in same colleges. According to the Petitioners. It is scale of pay of Rs. 2,200-4,000. In the circumstances, we direct that the Petitioners be paid salary instead of per lecture equivalent to Rs. 15, If not already enhanced, in the minimum of the scale of pay. In case the pay scale has been enhanced, then salary shall be paid in the enhanced pay scale. We further provide that the case of the Petitioners for regularisation be considered in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed in terms mentioned above. Parties to bear their own costs.