Vivekanand Jha vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S. Muralidhar, J.—The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sans than, Respondent No. 2, and the Union of India in the Ministry of Human Resource and Development (`HRD Ministry''), Respondent No. 1, to sanction the post of lecturer in Sociology in Rani Padmavati Tarayogtantra Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Indrapur (Shivpur), Varanasi (UP), Respondent No. 3, and absorb the Petitioner as lecturer in Sociology in Respondent No. 3 with effect from 29th October 1998, the date on which certain other posts in Respondent No. 3 were sanctioned and lecturers absorbed.

The Petitioner also challenges the Report of the Expert Committee (`EC'') dated 15th April 1997 to the extent of non-inclusion of the Petitioner''s name for such absorption. He further seeks a declaration that the office order dated 17th November 1998 issued by Respondent No. 2 declining the sanctioning of the post of lecturer in Sociology was illegal.

The case of the Petitioner is that he had applied for the post of lecturer in Sociology in Respondent No. 3 in 1995 and after interview by a Selection Committee was recommended for the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (`PGT'')/lecturer in Sociology (one of modern vocational language) on 31st July 1995. The Petitioner stated that he was appointed to the said post on 9th August 1995. He claims that he has been working on the said post continuously without any break as of the date of the filing of the present writ petition, i.e., 18th December 1998.

The HRD Ministry and Respondent No. 2 constituted an EC who visited Respondent No. 3 College on 14th April 1997. In a report dated 15th April 1997 the EC opined that the Petitioner''s work was unsatisfactory and, therefore, recommended the abolition of the post of lecturer in Sociology. The Petitioner assails the said recommendation and contends that the denial of sanction of the post of lecturer in Sociology while sanctioning other posts was arbitrary and discriminatory. He points out that the report of the EC screening the performance of the Petitioner and other lecturers also proceeded on erroneous assumptions.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it has been asserted that the EC constituted on 14th April 1997 comprising of eminent scholars and senior officers scrutinized the performance of the teaching staff, including the Petitioner and one Shri Prafulla Kumar Choudhary, who were the only two teachers teaching Sociology. Their performance was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, the EC recommended that Sociology as a subject should be dropped altogether. The abolition of the post is sought to be explained as purely an administrative action and a policy decision of the Respondents. Further, it is denied that the Petitioner possess the requisite qualification as prescribed by the University Grants Commission (`UGC'') for lecturership in 1995. The stand of the Respondents is that the Petitioner did not possess a Ph. D. degree or NET in 1995 and, therefore, was not eligible to be appointed as a lecturer. He was, therefore, offered the post of a PGT in Sociology which he accepted and joined on 9th August 1995.

In an additional affidavit filed on 1st August 2007, the Petitioner stated that he had been awarded a Ph. D. degree on 4th July 2006. He submits that the Review Committee had recommended the name of Shri Laxmi Kant Pathak for absorption as lecturer because he had submitted his thesis for Ph. D. although he was not awarded the Ph. D. degree. According to the Petitioner, the job assigned to a lecturer and a PGT is the same. According to the Petitioner, despite Respondents 1 and 2 asking Respondent No. 3 to absorb the Petitioner by several letters, it failed to comply with those directions. On the part of Respondent No. 3, it is pointed out that the Petitioner has now been absorbed as a PGT in 2007 but not since 19th October 1998.

The Petitioner has placed on record copy of the letters dated 9th April 2008 and 31st July 2008 written by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 2 stating that the decision of the Managing Committee dated 28th April 2008 was that the Petitioner and one Shri Madhup Nath Jha, PGT had to unconditionally withdraw their writ petitions and only thereafter their cases for absorption would be considered.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dineshan K.K., and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others, to urge that the Respondents had acted unfairly in denying absorption to the Petitioner in the post of lecturer in sociology with effect from 19th October 1998. According to him, the work of lecturer and a PGT was the same and, therefore, he could not be denied the pay and benefits in the post of PGT with effect from 19th October 1998 which were available to a lecturer. Further, it is pointed out that there were cases of certain others who were appointed as PGT when they did not have a Ph. D. degree but were subsequently absorbed as lecturers. Consequently, it is submitted that the Petitioner has been unfairly discriminated against.

The scope of the present proceedings has been narrowed down considerably. The Petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition, has been absorbed as a PGT in Sociology. The only issue to be considered is whether he has made out a case for a direction to be issued to the Respondents to absorb him as a lecturer in Sociology with effect from 19th October 1998.

The Petitioner has placed on record a copy of the letter written on 17th May 2005 by the HRD Ministry to Respondent No. 2. The said letter reads as under:

S. No. 10(I)

No. F. 25-20/2004-SKt-I

Government of India

Ministry of Human Resources Development

Department of Secondary and Higher Education

(Sanskrit-I Section)

New Delhi dated 17th May 2005

To,

The Director

Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan

Janakpuri, New Delhi

Subject: Appointment of Sh. Vivekanand Jha as PGT,

Sociology in Rani Padmani Tara Yog Tantra

ASM, Varanasi-regarding.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter No. RSK/Ad/35011/2004-05/819 dated 19.4.2005 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the department has No. objection to the Sansthan''s the proposal of keeping the three vacant posts of lecturer in abeyance and creating supernumerary posts of PGT, which will be personal to the incumbents.

You may, therefore, issue necessary instructions directing the Rani Padmani Tara Adarsh Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi to take follow up action and accommodate Shri Vivekanand Jha as PGT, Sociology since 1998 as recommended by the Review Committee. Selfcontained proposal relating to the cases of Shri Madhoop Nath Jha, Shri Akhilesh Mishra and Smt. Asha Mishra may be sent separately for consideration in this department.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

(Prem Narain Saxena)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

There is No. denial by the Respondents of the above factual position. It does appear that the Petitioner has now been absorbed in the post of PGT in Sociology but this has been given only prospective effect. It also appears that on 25th May 2009, in response to a letter by Respondent No. 3 dated 28th January 2009, Respondent No. 2 had granted approval to make the payments of the arrears of salary to the Petitioner as a PGT with effect from 29th October 1998 to 11th January 2007. For all practicable purposes, therefore, the Petitioner has been treated as having been appointed as a TGT in Sociology from 29th October 1998. If the entire arrears of the salary on that basis have not yet been paid to the Petitioner, it is directed that it should within eight weeks from today.

As regards the absorption of the Petitioner as lecturer in Sociology, this Court is unable to accept the submission that the post of PGT and lecturer in Sociology are the same. The UGC has clearly set down norms for appointments as lecturer in Sociology. One of the essential qualifications is that the candidate should possess a Ph. D. degree or should have qualified the NET. Admittedly, the Petitioner obtained the Ph. D. degree in February 2006. Notwithstanding the absorption of certain others as lecturers at a time when they did not possibly possess the Ph. D. degree, the Petitioner cannot as a matter of right, demand that he should be absorbed as a lecturer in Sociology, at a time when he did not possess the basic qualification of a Ph. D. degree.

Consequently, this Court declines the grant of the relief of absorption of the Petitioner in the post of lecturer in Sociology with effect from 29th October 1998.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terMs. All the pending applications stand disposed of.