Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 67 (MP)

Y. L. CHOPRA v. RANI DURGAWATI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

2010-01-18

P.K.JAISWAL

body2010
Judgment P.K.Jaiswal, J. ( 1. ) The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner who is a qualified Librarian employed in Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur is entitled to parity between professional library staff and the teaching staff of the University and he can be treated as a "Teacher" and is entitled to be superannuated on attaining the age of 62 years. ( 2. ) The petitioner was initially appointed as University Librarian on 16.7.1983. His appointment was made by the then Vice-Chancellor under section 52 of M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short the Adhiniyam) as at the relevant time there was no Executive Council. He is still working on the same post in the Professors pay scale of Rs. 16440-22400 (UGC). The respondent No. 1 in its Executive Council meeting held on 14.6.1994 decided to open Master Degree in Library and Information Science (M.Lib.I. Sc.) from the session 1994-95. The proposal of the Executive Council of respondent No, 1 was sent to the respondent No. 2 with the Draft Ordinance No.90 for approval. Draft Ordinance No.90 was approved by the Co-ordination committee in its 57th meeting held on 19,3 1998. Respondent No. 1 thereafter wrote a letter dated 30.7.1996 (Annex.P-1) to the respondent 2 proposing the scheme of M.Lib. I. Sc. Course wherein in Column No. 12 the teachers of subjects described as Librarian and Assistant Librarian and the name of the petitioner in the said Scheme is mentioned as "Teacher". The State Government as well as Co-ordination Committee granted permission to open M.Lib. I. Sc. course. The new course of M.Lib. I. Sc. began in 1998-99 and the petitioner was appointed as Member and Chairman of "Board of Studies in Library and Information Science" under Statute 2 (1) of the Adhiniyam by order dated 5.12.1998. On 8.3.1999, the petitioner was appointed as Head of the Department of Library Science by the respondent no. 1. On 21.7.2000 the petitioner was further appointed as member of Academic Council and his name was mentioned in the list of affiliated colleges and university teaching department which includes the Department of Library and Information Science published by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner being HOD of Library Science Department is imparting instructions to the students and for this work of imparting instructions, the petitioner has rendered his services as a Professor. 1. The petitioner being HOD of Library Science Department is imparting instructions to the students and for this work of imparting instructions, the petitioner has rendered his services as a Professor. As per UGC pay-scale the librarian is getting same scale which is being granted to a University Professor (Annexure-P-23). ( 3. ) The definition of Teacher is mentioned in Section 2(xx) of the Adhiniyam which reads as under: "2(xx). Teachers of the University" means Professors; Readers, Assistant Professors, Lecturers and such other persons as may be appointed for imparting instructions or conducting research with the approval of the Academic Council in the University or any other college or institution maintained or recognized by the University." ( 4. ) The 62nd meeting of Co-ordination Committee was held on 29.5.2000. The Vice-Chancellors of various universities of Madhya Pradesh opined that since the Supreme Court has declared the post of Sports Officer as "Teacher", in view of this decision, the post of Director, Physical Education and also Librarian shall be declared as academic posts. It was also mentioned that in the University where B. Lib, M. Lib, B.P. Ed. and M.P. Ed. Courses are going on, the post of Director, Physical Education and Librarian be declared as "Teacher" and be deleted from statute 20. The Co-ordination Committee in its meeting dated 29.5.2000 decided that in those universities where Physical Education/Library Science courses are going on and where appointments of Director, Physical Education and Librarian are made under Statute 49 there these posts shall be treated as "Teacher" and be deleted from Statute 20. The UGC in its letter dated 20th April, 1999 mentioned that the post of University Library be treated as "Non-vocational Teacher". On 4.8.2000. the Higher Education Department directed that the post of Librarian be treated as "Teacher" and be deleted from Statute 20. On 19.3.2001 the Executive Council of respondent No. 1 had taken a decision that decision of Co-ordination Committee dated 29.5.2000 and the consequential order of Higher Education Department dated 4.8.2000 are required to be followed as a policy, but the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was appointed under Statute 20 and not under Statute 49 and, therefore, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "Teacher". Thereafter vide order dated 12.10.2001 name of the petitioner was deleted from the seniority list of 2001 as "Teacher" on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed under Statute 49 and was appointed under Statute 20. Against the said order petitioner made a representation which was rejected vide order dated 20.9.2002 (Annexure-P-21-A), ( 5. ) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. He further submitted that once policy decision has been taken by the respondents to treat the "Librarian" as a "Teacher" on 29.5.2000, then they cannot turn down the same on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was made under Statute 20 and not under Statute 49 of the Adhiniyam. His further submission was that the petitioner was not appointed under Statute 20, but was appointed under section 52 of the Adhiniyam and the method of appointment of Teachers or of officers is identical and the method of appointment is described in Statute 49. He further submits that the petitioner was treated as a Teacher" under statute 2 (1) of the Adhiniyam and the petitioner was appointed as Member and Chairman of "Board of Studies", it is not open to the Vishwavidyalaya to still treat the petitioner as not Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner and Dr. B.K. Sahu both were appointed under section 52 of the Adhiniyam by the then Vice-Chancellor and his case is identical to Dr. B.K. Sahu who was subsequently confirmed as Officer by the Vishwavidyalaya by order dated 17.5.1989 and his case has been accepted by the respondent No. 1 in its Executive Council meeting held on 19.3.2001 whereas the case of the petitioner was turned down inter alia on the ground that his appointment was made under Statute 20 of the Adhiniyam. The action of the respondent No. 1 is arbitrary and discriminatory. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that Dr.B.K. Sahu who was appointed on the post of Project Officer in Adult Education by the University has been confirmed as Officer. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned orders and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as a "Teacher" and give him all consequential benefits arising thereto. ( 6. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned orders and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as a "Teacher" and give him all consequential benefits arising thereto. ( 6. ) The respondent No. 1 in its return denied the averments made in the petition and inter alia contended that petitioner cannot be treated as a "Teacher" because his appointment was made under Statute 20 and Statute 20 speaks about the appointment of "other officers of the University" whereas Statute 49 speaks about "teaching post" in the University. There is lot of difference between Statute 20 under which petitioner was appointed and Statute 49 under which a "Teacher" is appointed. Service condition, selection procedure etc. are also different for these two categories. The petitioner after being appointed as Librarian under Statute 20 cannot claim equality to that of a Teacher who is appointed under Section 49 of the Adhiniyam. In respect of proposal (Annex.P-1), it is submitted that under Clause 12 it has been mentioned that one Librarian and one Assistant Librarian will hold the classes and it was accepted by the Co-ordination Committee. Accordingly, the petitioner was given the work of teaching along with one Shri Shrivastava, Assistant Librarian who conducted the course. In respect of Dr. B.K. Sahu, it is submitted that he was appointed as Project Officer, through a duly constituted selection committee by the Vice-Chancellor under the provisions and powers vested in him under section 52 of the Adhiniyam. This post is not covered under Statute 20. It is further contended that decision taken on 19.3.2001 is neither arbitrary nor unjust or unreasonable. The petitioner cannot be treated to be appointed under Statute 49 of the Adhiniyam, nor his retirement can be extended up-to 62 years unless and until it is decided by the respondent No. 2. ( 7. ) It has been emphatically stated by the respondent No. 1 that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities as well as the type of experience and the period of work of the two sets of employees i.e. Librarian and Teacher are altogether different and that both these categories can on no account be equated. ( 8. ( 7. ) It has been emphatically stated by the respondent No. 1 that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities as well as the type of experience and the period of work of the two sets of employees i.e. Librarian and Teacher are altogether different and that both these categories can on no account be equated. ( 8. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner took pains in persuading me that Librarians play a vital role in the development of the institution of higher learning and they are of real and immense help to research work and advance studies. The educational qualifications of the two sets of employees are also the same and, therefore, there is no reason to treat them differently and with discrimination. He submitted that the petitioner has acquired a vested right to have the scale of the pay at par with the teaching staff of the University and its colleges which authority had been given to them earlier on sound academic consideration and after due deliberation and there was no justification with the respondents not to treat them at par and equate the petitioner with the teacher. ( 9. ) In the present case, I find that that there is no judicial or quasi judicial duty or any obligation imposed on the respondents to equate the Librarian with the Teacher nor it can be said that the respondents did not act fairly or acted mala fide so as to call for any interference by this Court invoking power of judicial review. ( 10. ) The question whether a Librarian can be regarded as a "Teacher" has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5709/2002 (Ram Sajeevan Maurya v. The State of M.P. and others) decided on 18.3.2009 wherein it has been held that a Sport Teacher stands on different footing than a Librarian and no status has been conferred on the librarians treating them as teachers inasmuch as they belong to a different class altogether and the State Government has conferred them the benefit by a circular which is within its domain but it can be construed that they have been given the benefit because they are equated with teachers and held that Librarian cannot be treated as a "Teacher". Paras 6 to 11 wherein it has been held read as under :- "6. Paras 6 to 11 wherein it has been held read as under :- "6. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the analysis by us has to be restricted with regard to the facet whether by virtue of coming into force of the rules, a Librarian can be regarded as a teacher. The rule which we have reproduced, defines a teacher. Under the definition a teacher means a government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching any Government Educational Institution including Technical or Medical Institutions, in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an Administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School/Collegiate/Technical/Medical Education service. If the definition is understood in proper perspective, we are inclined to think that it only covers a teacher who is appointed for the purpose of teaching in a Government Educational Institution which includes Technical or Medical Institutions. 7. We have been apprised at the bar that there is a set of rules, namely, M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990. On a scrutiny of said rules, it appears that the post of Librarian is reflected in Schedule III. On a perusal of the same, it does not reflect that he is a teacher or assigned any kind of teaching. 8. In this context, Mr. Kumaresh Pathak has commended us to the decision rendered in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kshetra Pal Sharma 1992 Madhya Pradesh Service Times 719. In the said case, the Apex Court has observed as under :- "Having accepted the appointment to the post of librarian and having taken benefit of higher pay scale till the date of his superannuation, he cannot be allowed to turn round and claim benefit of service conditions as a teacher. We are, therefore, of the opinion that he was rightly retired at the age of 58 years on 30th April, 1986 and the Tribunal was wrong in concluding that he was entitled to the benefit of the service condition of teacher. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in thinking that the applicant was working as a librarian in his capacity as a teacher. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in thinking that the applicant was working as a librarian in his capacity as a teacher. We, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the original application which has given rise to this appeal." Submission of Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel and the other counsel appearing for the petitioners is that said decision cannot be treated as a precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of holding that a Librarian is not a Teacher. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also commended us to the decision rendered in P.S. Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P. Agricultural University and another AIR 1997 SC 3433 wherein it has been held as under :- "10. From the aforesaid affidavit it is clear that a Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanys the students team when they go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of the various games and sports. It is well known that different games and sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are guided about the said rules and practices they will not be able to play the games and participates in the sports in a proper manner. Further, in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games and sports. There are large number of indoor and outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and the techniques of these games apart from the rules applicable to these games. Thereafter, their Lordships proceeded to state as follows : 20. We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evening after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical class for the students so far as physical education is concerned. We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evening after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical class for the students so far as physical education is concerned. But as pointed out by us earlier, among various duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise, are included the duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules and practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main part of the definition as a teacher. We, therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit of the University. 21. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and judgment of the High Court is set aside and it is declared that appellant was entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 years of age. Now that he has retired he is entitled to the emoluments payable to him for the remaining period of the service up to the completion of 60 years deducting the period for which he worked as Physical Director beyond 58 years pursuant to stay order granted by the High Court, His retiral benefits shall also be computed on the basis that his age of retirement was 60 years. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly," 10. On a careful reading of the aforesaid decision and the analysis made by their Lordships, we are of the considered view that a Sports Officer stands on a different footing than a Librarian. Nothing has been brought on record that Librarian carries on any kind of teaching. Once the definition has been brought into existence, Librarians do not fit into the compartment of definition even in the remotest sense. It will be extremely difficult to confer the benefit of teacher on them as for as date of retirement is concerned. It is worth noting that the State Govt. issued a circular on 30th September, 2008. The English translation of the said circular would be as under :- "1. The State Government has decided to increase the age of superannuation from the date of 60 years to 62 years for Sports Officer/Librarian working in all the Government Colleges. It is worth noting that the State Govt. issued a circular on 30th September, 2008. The English translation of the said circular would be as under :- "1. The State Government has decided to increase the age of superannuation from the date of 60 years to 62 years for Sports Officer/Librarian working in all the Government Colleges. In pursuant thereto the age of superannuation of Sports Officer/Librarian has increased from the age of 60 years to 62 years. 2. The same is confirmed by order no,KR/2010/08/ rules/four dated 8.12.2008. 3. The aforesaid order will come into effect from the date of order." If the language of the said circular is understood, it can be stated without any fear of contradiction that no status has been conferred on the librarians treating them as teachers inasmuch as they belong to a different class altogether and the State Govt, has conferred them the benefit by a circular which is within its domain but it cannot be construed that they have been given the benefit because they are equated with teachers. ( 11. ) In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any merit in these writ petitions and accordingly they stand dismissed without any order as to costs," 11. It is true that in the year 1983 the petitioner was appointed under section 52 of the Adhiniyam because at the relevant time there was no Executive Council. It is also true that appointment of the Librarian is to be made under Statute 20 whereas Statute 49 speaks about appointment of teaching post in the University, There is lot of difference between Statute 20 under which "other officers of the University" were appointed and Statute 49 under which a "Teacher" is appointed. Service condition, selection procedure etc. are also different for these two categories. Thus the petitioner who has been appointed as Librarian cannot claim equality to that of a teacher who is appointed under Statute 49 of the Adhiniyam. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time when the University started new course, University had sent proposal to the Co-ordination Committee regarding staff vide Annex.P-1. Thus the petitioner who has been appointed as Librarian cannot claim equality to that of a teacher who is appointed under Statute 49 of the Adhiniyam. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time when the University started new course, University had sent proposal to the Co-ordination Committee regarding staff vide Annex.P-1. In Clause 12 of the said proposal it has been mentioned that one Librarian and one Assistant Librarian will hold classes and it was accepted by the Co-ordination Committee and accordingly the petitioner was given the work of teaching along with one Shri Shrivastava and they were also paid honorarium of Rs.100/- per lecture, over and above their salary for additional work done by way of teaching class. The case of Dr. B.K. Sahu, who was appointed as Project Officer through a duly constituted committee by the Vice-Chancellor under the provisions and powers vested in him under section 52 of the Adhiniyam. This post is not covered under Statute 20 and he continued to hold this post till 21.1.2001. The case of the petitioner is altogether different from the case of Dr. B.K. Sahu and he has no parity with him. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and another (1998) 2 SCC 502 and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 111 are altogether different and the same would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Sajeevan Maurya v. The State ofM.P. and others (supra) is an authority and the issue decided in the said case is same and will be fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 12. ) After a serious and anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, according to me there appears to be no rationale or any justification in the claim of parity between the teaching staff and the library staff in respondent No. 1 University and its colleges for the simple reason that the two sets of employees belonged to different categories of employees who stand on a different footing. The nature of duties, workload, experience and responsibilities of the two sets of employees in question are totally different from each other. The nature of duties, workload, experience and responsibilities of the two sets of employees in question are totally different from each other. The teaching staff has to do some research work, deep study in their respective subjects and to make preparations for the daily lectures in the classrooms and other academic work while this is not so in the case of library staff. The experience of library staff is totally different from the one which is required for the teaching staff. Working pattern of the two sets of employees cannot be said to be identical so as to claim parity between the library staff and the teaching staff. As a matter of fact the courts would be slow in interfering with matters of government policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala fide or contrary to any statutory directions. There will be no justification for this court to interfere with the policy of the Government and it is matter of policy of the Government and it is not for the courts to interfere with such policy decisions of the Government. Normally the courts will not dictate the decision of the statutory authority in exercise of its discretion and formulation of its policies. The court will not direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. In the present case I find that there is no obligation imposed on the Government to equate library staff and the teaching staff and treat the library staff as teaching staff. ( 13. ) For the reasons stated above I find no merit in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner who is working as a Librarian cannot be treated as a Teacher. The learned authorities have not committed any legal error in passing the impugned orders dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure-P-19) and dated 28th September, 2002 (Annexure-P-21-A). The petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.