Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 481 (UTT)

BHAGWATI RAWAT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2009-09-15

V.K.BIST

body2009
Judgment 1. Since the controversy involved in both writ petitions is same, they are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Facts of these petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in different Institutions in the State of U.P. on different dates. Fourth Pay Commission Report was implemented in the year 1990 and revised pay scales were granted with effect from 01.01.1986. The Fourth Pay Commission report also recommended pay scale admissible to the post of Lecturer to Assistant Teachers, who have completed 10 years in teaching Intermediate Classes. This benefit was to be given to Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). The State Government accepted the recommendations and issued Government Order dated 28.02.1990 whereby Assistant Teachers were granted pay scale of Lecturer after completing 10 years of teaching intermediate classes. Thereafter, vide Government Order No. 3263/15.08.2000/3227/90 dated 25.10.2000 another policy decision was taken by the State Government for grant of designation of Lecturer to Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service while teaching in Intermediate classes. Petitioners fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 25.10.2000. They were granted designation of Lecturer from due date by way of separate orders. At the time of issuance of aforesaid Government Orders all the petitioners were already getting pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 which is admissible for the post of Lecturer. After grant of designation of Lecturer, seniority of all the petitioners were fixed in the cadre of Lecturer in their respective Institutions. But suddenly by Government Order No. 611/XXIV-4/2008 dated 13.10.2008 issued by respondent no. 1, the designation of Lecturer given to the petitioners and others was unilaterally withdrawn by respondent no. 1. In the aforesaid Government Order dated 13.10.2008 it was mentioned that the designation of Lecturer cannot be given to the Teachers of such colleges where Art, Physical Education and Craft etc. subjects are not recognized at Intermediate stage. In pursuance of this Government Order another order was issued by District Education Officers to the Manager of the Institutions for cancelling the order by which designation of Lecturer was given to the petitioners. All these orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before this Court that Order dated 13.10.2008 has been passed by the Secretary of the Government in cursory manner and without application of mind. All these orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before this Court that Order dated 13.10.2008 has been passed by the Secretary of the Government in cursory manner and without application of mind. In support of their arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner referred Regulation 5 Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which provides that Physical Education and Moral Education shall be essential for students of Intermediate classes. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that impugned orders have been passed by the respondents without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in view of this fact same deserve to be set aside. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that though petitioners are being paid promotional pay scale of LT Grade of Rs. 6500-10500 which is equivalent to pay scale of Lecturer but designation of Lecturer has been withdrawn because only those Assistant Teachers can be given such designation who are teaching in those schools where physical education as a subject is duly recognized at Intermediate level. But as this subject is not recognized in the petitioners’ institutions the designation granted to them was withdrawn vide impugned Government Orders dated 13.10.2008. 4. From the record it is clear that petitioner no. 1 and 2 of writ petition no. 1173 (SS) of 2008 were granted the designation of Lecturer w.e.f. 05.02.2002 and 03.02.2002 respectively whereas petitioner of writ petition no. 323 (SS) of 2009 was granted the designation of Lecturer w.e.f. 01.12.2001. At the time of grant of designation, petitioners were already getting pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 which is equal to the pay scale of the post of a Lecturer. Thus, the petitioners by virtue of impugned government Order are not affected so far as pay scale is concerned. This pay scale is being paid to the petitioners on completion of 10 years of service. But by virtue of Government Order dated 13.10.2008 designation of Lecturer has been withdrawn from the petitioners and now the petitioners are being treated as Assistant Teacher. Regulation 5 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act clearly provides that Physical Education and Moral Education shall be essential for the students of Intermediate classes. Relevant portion of Regulation 5 is quoted as under:- “5. Regulation 5 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act clearly provides that Physical Education and Moral Education shall be essential for the students of Intermediate classes. Relevant portion of Regulation 5 is quoted as under:- “5. Except the examinees of Agriculture and Commerce (Third) (Commercial Education) categories each examinee of Intermediate Examination shall be examined in five subjects as follows: In addition to these subjects teaching of Physical Exercise and Moral Education shall be compulsory for all students” 5. This Court is not satisfied with the arguments of learned Standing Counsel that recognition of the subject – Physical Education in Intermediate Class where petitioners are teaching was not accorded. Regulation 5 clearly provides that physical education shall be an essential subject for students of Intermediate classes. Thus, it cannot be said that recognition was not granted to Physical Education subject in the Institutions where petitioners are teaching. Recognition is precondition for compulsory subject. It is admitted fact that there is a subject of Physical Education in Intermediate classes in the institutions where petitioners are teaching for the last several years. In view of this fact and also in view of Regulation 5 of the Regulations under Chapter XIV of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act it cannot be said that there was no recognition to Physical Education in the Institutions. The respondents themselves are permitting Intermediate classes in the Institutions to function. Withdrawal of designation is thus arbitrary and illegal. This Court also finds force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that by the issuance of impugned order petitioners’ rights are being affected and respondents acted illegally by withdrawing designation without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. In view of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned Government Order No. 611/XXIV-4/2008 dated 13.10.2008 issued by respondent no. 1 and also consequential order dated 22.10.2008 passed by respondent no. 3 in writ petition no. 1173 (SS) of 2008 and order dated 21.01.2009 passed by respondent no. 4 and order dated 17.01.2009 passed by respondent no. 3 in writ petition no. 323 (S/S) of 2009 are quashed. 7. No order as to costs.