Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2003 DIGILAW 669 (SC)

State Of Haryana v. BABITA YADAVS

2003-05-01

ARIJIT PASAYAT, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL

body2003
ORDER 1. NON-OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS IN THESE APPEALS WERE RECRUITED AND APPOINTED AS LECTURERS IN VARIOUS SUBJECTS IN THE PUBLIC GIRLS COLLEGE, REWARI, AFTER THEIR SELECTION BY A SELECTION COMMITTEE WHICH CONSISTED OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, THE SUBJECT EXPERT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGEMENT AND THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE. THEY JOINED SERVICE, PURSUANT TO THE SELECTION MADE IN NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992. THE COLLEGE IS MEANT FOR GIRLS AND IT IS SAID THAT NO TUITION FEE IS COLLECTED FROM THE STUDENTS. THE COLLEGE IS AN AIDED COLLEGE, GETTING NINETY-FIVE PERCENT GRANT FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SANCTIONED POSTS. WHEN THESE NON-OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS (FOR SHORT, "THE RESPONDENTS") WERE NOT PAID SALARIES ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RECEIPT OF THE GRANT FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THEY WERE CONSTRAINED TO APPROACH THE HIGH COURT BY FILING THE WRIT PETITIONS SEEKING NECESSARY RELIEFS FOR GETTING SALARY, ETC. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE HIM, ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITIONS AND DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO RELEASE THE GRANT-IN-AID TO THE COLLEGE IN RESPECT OF THE SALARY PAYABLE TO THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN WITHIN FOUR MONTHS. AGGRIEVED BY AND NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, FILED LETTERS PATENT APPEALS BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. THE DIVISION BENCH, NOT FINDING ANY VALID AND GOOD GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AFFIRMED THE SAME AND DISMISSED THE LETTERS PATENT APPEALS. HENCE, THESE APPEALS. 2. MS KAVITA WADIA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS IN THESE APPEALS, URGED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SANCTION GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE COURSES, THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO GRANT AND EVENTUAL PAYMENT OF THEIR SALARIES; THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION WAS NOT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO ACCORD SANCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT-IN-AID IN REGARD TO THE COURSES STARTED IN THE COLLEGE OR AS TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS TEACHING PARTICULAR SUBJECTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THIS COURT HAS, ON 4-8-2000, STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, BUT, HOWEVER, IT CLARIFIED THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE MANAGEMENT TO TAKE WORK FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND IN THAT CASE, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PAY SALARIES TO THE RESPONDENTS FROM THEIR OWN FUNDS. 3. IN OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS URGED THAT NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THEY SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE APPOINTED AFTER PROPER SELECTION MADE BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, REFERENCE TO WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE ABOVE; THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ON BEING SATISFIED THAT THEIR APPOINTMENTS WERE VALID, THERE WAS WORKLOAD AND THAT THEY SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS MADE RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR SANCTION OF GRANT-IN-AID. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION HIMSELF WAS COMPETENT TO ACCORD SANCTION AND THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HIM TO SEEK FURTHER SANCTION FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE COURSES IN COMMERCE, HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HOME SCIENCE WERE COMMENCED EITHER WITH THE SANCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OR THE STATE GOVERNMENT, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THEY ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE NOMINEES OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION WERE IN THE SELECTION COMMITTEE IS YET ANOTHER INDICATOR TO SHOW THAT THE COURSES WERE STARTED IN THE COLLEGE WITH PRIOR APPROVAL. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT, IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN RESPECT OF MS BABITA YADAV AND MS SUDERSHAN, RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4430 OF 2000, SANCTION WAS ACCORDED WITH EFFECT FROM 2-4-1997 AND 16-3-1998 RESPECTIVELY. MS SABINA SINGH, RESPONDENT 2 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4430 OF 2000, HAS LEFT THE SERVICE. THE SANCTION WAS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING RESPONDENTS IN THESE APPEALS, SUBJECT TO THE RESULT OF THESE APPEALS. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS STATED THAT THE SANCTION WAS GIVEN IN REGARD TO THE REMAINING RESPONDENTS BECAUSE THERE WAS A THREAT OF CONTEMPT. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SANCTION IS GIVEN TO ALL THE RESPONDENTS, EXCEPT RESPONDENT 2, WHO HAS LEFT THE SERVICE AS OF TODAY. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS STATED THAT THE SANCTION WAS GIVEN IN REGARD TO THE REMAINING RESPONDENTS BECAUSE THERE WAS A THREAT OF CONTEMPT. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SANCTION IS GIVEN TO ALL THE RESPONDENTS, EXCEPT RESPONDENT 2, WHO HAS LEFT THE SERVICE AS OF TODAY. 5. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SELECTION OF THE RESPONDENTS FOR APPOINTMENT AS LECTURERS IN THE COLLEGE WAS MADE BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT GET BACKDOOR ENTRY INTO SERVICE; THEY HAVE BEEN TEACHING IN THE COLLEGE SINCE 1992. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION RECOMMENDED FOR SANCTION OF GRANT-IN-AID IN RESPECT OF THE COURSES TAUGHT BY THESE RESPONDENTS. ASSUMING THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT DID NOT GIVE ANY SANCTION AS SUCH, IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT SUCH A SANCTION WAS REFUSED AT ANY POINT OF TIME. IT IS NOT THE STAND OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT THAT THERE WAS ANY DEFICIENCY ON THE PART OF THE COLLEGE TO REFUSE SANCTION. THE ONLY PLEA, IF WE CAN SAY SO, IS THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT DID NOT GIVE ANY SANCTION AS SUCH. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE DIVISION BENCH, AFFIRMING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IN EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS. 6. HOWEVER, IN REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO THE RESPONDENTS, EXCEPT RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4430 OF 2000, FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM 1-8-2000 TO 30-4-2003 AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT ON 4-8-2000, WE THINK IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO C DIRECT THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE FIFTY PER CENT OF THE SALARY TO THE RESPONDENTS. SO FAR AS RESPONDENTS MS BABITA YADAV AND MS SUDERSHAN ARE CONCERNED, THEY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 9-4-2001, WHICH READS: "HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. THE ORDER DATED 4-8-2000 IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 WILL BE ENTITLED TO SALARY W.E.F. 1-8-2000. IA NO.3 IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY." 7. SO FAR AS RESPONDENTS MS BABITA YADAV AND MS SUDERSHAN ARE CONCERNED, THEY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 9-4-2001, WHICH READS: "HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. THE ORDER DATED 4-8-2000 IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 WILL BE ENTITLED TO SALARY W.E.F. 1-8-2000. IA NO.3 IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY." 7. WE, HOWEVER, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS PERIOD I.E. FROM 1-8-2000 TO 30-4-2003, SHALL BE RECKONED AND COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENIORITY, INCREMENT, ETC. EXCEPT SALARY. WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY IS THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION WITH REGARD TO SANCTION OF POSTS IS LEFT OPEN TO BE DECIDED IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE. 8. NO COSTS.