Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1170 (ALL)

Santosh Vijay Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2004-05-28

SUNIL AMBWANI

body2004
JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Sri Devendra Swaroop for petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. The petitioner is working as a Workshop Instructor in the Instrumentation Department of I.E.R.T., Allahabad. He was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on 18.12.1980 and was given regular appointment as Workshop Instructor in the Electrical Faculty on 12.1.1983. He was selected as Instructor (I.C.) in the Instrumentation and Control Department on 11.3.1983 and was required to teach Electronics Measurement (Lab.) and Electronics Instrumentation (Lab.). The petitioner holds a diploma in Electronics from U. P. Technical Board in 1977. 3. The Government order dated 31.12.1987 changed the designation of Instructors possessing a diploma in Engineering as Assistant Lecturer in the Polytechnics. The petitioner claims that he was also entitled to have his designation as Assistant Lecturer, and that he has been making representation since 1992 for this purpose. All the Assistant Lecturers Engineering fall in the same class at Sl. No. 9 of the Government order dated 2.6.1992 and Workshop Instructors were placed in a separate class at item No. 9A with the same pay scale, i.e., 1400-2600. By Government order dated 3.6.1992 the pay scale of Assistant Lecturers (Engineering) at Sl. No. 9A of the Government order dated 2.6.1992 were given a revised pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. From this point of time, the two categories of employees which were similar and were given complete equality in pay scale and other benefits were treated differently and that the ‘Assistant Lecturers’ (Engineering) placed at Sl. No. 9A was given a favored treatment in a higher pay scale. Their essential qualification and method of recruitment was the same. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to confer the designation of ‘Assistant Lecturer’, to the petitioner to give same revised pay scale effective from 1.1.1986, which was subsequently revised on 3.6.1992 and to quash the order dated 3.11.2001 and 9.1.2002 by which the petitioner’s representations were rejected. 4. In State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 114 , the Supreme Court held that while considering the challenge the base of Article 14 has to be arbitrariness in the classification. The Court has to examine whether the impugned classification satisfied certain constitutional mandates. 4. In State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 114 , the Supreme Court held that while considering the challenge the base of Article 14 has to be arbitrariness in the classification. The Court has to examine whether the impugned classification satisfied certain constitutional mandates. They will examine (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which defines persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) differentia must have a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. 5. U. P. Pravidhik Shiksha Institutions (Receiving Grant in Aid from Government) Regulations, 1976, regulate recruitment probation, confirmation, seniority, pay and other conditions of service of the Technical Staff of the recognised Institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the Government. Appendix B under Regulations 7 and 9 provides for academic qualification and age of each of various categories of post. Items 12 and 13 of Appendix B provide for separate academic qualification for appointment to the post of ‘Assistant Lecturer’ and “Workshop Instructor’ respectively. Whereas for “Assistant Lecturer”, the prescribed qualification is Diploma with 60% marks with the concerned branch of Engineering and one year industrial experience/ apprenticeship ; the qualification for the post of Workshop Instructor is three years certificate in the concerned trade from Government Secondary. Technical School with the certificate in the concerned trade from Industrial Training Institute or Diploma in the concerned branch with three years industrial experience. Appendix A provide for same mode of selection, namely direct recruitment through selection committee but for ‘Assistant Lecturer’ in Item No. 13 the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 is provided to be higher than the ‘Workshop Instructor’ in item No. 14 in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600. 6. The State Government considered the report of the Director of Technical Education U. P. dated 31.1.2001 and has taken a decision on 9.1.2002, rejecting the petitioners representations to change his designation. 7. In the counter-affidavit and in the report of the Director Technical Education dated 3.11.2001, it is stated that the petitioner was selected and was appointed on 12.1.1983 as instructor, i.e., Workshop Instrumentation and Control Department and that his appointment has been approved against the post of Workshop Instructor. He is Diploma in Electronics 60% and had seven years experience in 2001. The Government order dated 31.12.1987 changed the designation of Instructors holding Engineering Diploma as Assistant Lecturer. He is Diploma in Electronics 60% and had seven years experience in 2001. The Government order dated 31.12.1987 changed the designation of Instructors holding Engineering Diploma as Assistant Lecturer. This designation was given only to the Diploma holders Assistant Lecturer, and not the Workshop Instructors. The post of Engineering Instructor has been declared as dying cadre and that this Workshop Instructor’ (Diploma holder) are working in the institution. Since the post of ‘Assistant Lecturer’ has been declared as a dying cadre, the ‘Workshop Instructor’ falling in a different cadre cannot be given the designation as Assistant Lecturer. It was reported that there are six similarly situate Workshop Instructors holding Diploma in Engineering. 8. The short question which arises for determination is whether the petitioner is similarly situate and is performing the same functions, duties as Assistant Lecturers. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality in employment. This equality is subject to the reasonable classification, based on intelligible differentia having rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. 9. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit of Sri S. C. Gupta, Assistant Director, Technical Education Directorate, U. P. Kanpur, it is stated that there is difference in works and responsibilities of these two posts. The averments in paras 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit have not been denied in the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner. In para 9 of the rejoinder-affidavit it is stated that it is wrong to suggest that merely the nature of work is the reason of changing the name and cadre and status of Engineering diploma or Assistant Lecturers and there is nothing to show and infer. 10. The academic qualification for appointment of both is different and the nature of work and responsibility is not the same. Although the petitioner is holding diploma in Electronics which is also the qualification for the Assistant Lecturer but he was selected and appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor. He was selected against the post, i.e., Workshop Instrumentation and Control Department and discharging the duties in the Workshop since thereafter. He, therefor, cannot be treated as equal to Assistant Lecturer. The difference in the pay scales is on account of recommendations of the Samata Samiti which were accepted by the State Government. He was selected against the post, i.e., Workshop Instrumentation and Control Department and discharging the duties in the Workshop since thereafter. He, therefor, cannot be treated as equal to Assistant Lecturer. The difference in the pay scales is on account of recommendations of the Samata Samiti which were accepted by the State Government. The petitioner has not pleaded or pointed out any illegality or failure to consider the relevant material for making recommendations for higher grade to the post of Assistant Lecturer (Engineering). 11. For the reasons as above, I find that the petitioner has not been discriminated as against the persons holding the post of Assistant Lecturer and is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.