Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 152 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Prasanna Kumar Pati

2011-03-09

B.K.MISRA, B.P.DAS

body2011
JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J.- The State Government, through its Secretary, Higher Education Department & the Director Higher Education Department have come up before this Court challenging the Order Dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1 007 of 2005 in Annexure-5. 2. The sole point for consideration before this Court is whether the period of service rendered by the Opp. Party as a Lecturer in an aided Non-Government educational institution is to be counted for the purpose of sanction of career advancement & other consequential service benefits. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the Director of Public Instruction (DPI) on 20.5.1977 for preparation of a merit list of Lecturers in different disciplines in order to fill up the vacancies in different Government & Non Government Colleges on temporary basis. Pursuant to such advertisement, a common merit list was prepared wherein the Opp. Party secured 6th position. In terms of the said merit list, the Opp. Party was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce & joined as an ad hoc Lecturer in a Non-Government Aided College, i.e. Salipur College, on 3.8.1977. 4. Thereafter pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission for appointment as Lecturer in Commerce in Class-II of O.F.S., the Opp. Party faced the selection & secured 15th position & was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce in a Government College, i.e. Angul College, & joined the post on 7.10.1980 & one Shri Rabindranath Das who secured 19th position in the merit list, was posted in a Government College, i.e. Bhadrak College. 5. When the period of service rendered by the Opp. Party in the aided Non-Government institution was not counted for the purpose of sanction of career advancement & other consequential service benefits, the Opp. Party made a representation to the State Government. The Deputy Director, Higher Education by letter dated 7.1.2004 (Annexure-9 to the Original Application rejected the claim of the Opp. Party. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order, the Opp. Party preferred an Original Application being O.A. No.1007 of 2005 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal taking all the aspects into consideration, disposed of the Original Application by its Judgment dated 29.2.2008 with the finding that the Opp. Party. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order, the Opp. Party preferred an Original Application being O.A. No.1007 of 2005 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal taking all the aspects into consideration, disposed of the Original Application by its Judgment dated 29.2.2008 with the finding that the Opp. Party has served for a considerable period on ad hoc basis in Non-Government Aided colleges & his counterparts in the Government colleges have been extended such benefits, directed the present Petitioners to count the period of service rendered by the Opp. Party in the aided Non-Government institution for the purpose of career advancement & make available the consequential benefits to the Opp. Party including seniority, promotion, if due & the arrears be paid within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the' copy of the order. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the State & its functionary have filed this writ application. 6. The ground which was raised before the Tribunal is that the Lecturers, who rendered services in Non-Government Aided colleges before joining in Government Colleges, were protected by a notification of the State Government dated 8.12.1995 wherein it has been indicated that “the period of continuous ad hoc service of a Lecturer, who had been appointed on the recommendation of the Director against any regular vacancy on the basis of the prescribed minimum qualification & selection, if followed, by his regular appointment or by an order of regularization, shall be taken into account". 7. The Opp. Party has filed a counter affidavit refuting the stand taken by the Petitioners & indicating therein that his case has been discriminated by the Petitioners. It has been indicated that in the common merit list prepared to fill up the vacancies of Lecturers in different Government & Non-Government Colleges on ad hoc basis, the Opp. Party & one .Shri Rabindranath Das were selected as Lecturers. Shri Das secured 30th position in the common merit list, whereas the Opp. Party secured 6th position. Securing 6th position while the Opp. Party was allotted a Non-Government College, Shri Das securing 30th position was allotted a Government College. Subsequently In the selection held by Orissa Public Selection Commission, both of them faced the selection & in the merit list drawn up by the OPSC, Shri Das secured 19th position & continued in the said Government College, i.e. Bhadrak College, whereas the Opp. Party was allotted a Non-Government College, Shri Das securing 30th position was allotted a Government College. Subsequently In the selection held by Orissa Public Selection Commission, both of them faced the selection & in the merit list drawn up by the OPSC, Shri Das secured 19th position & continued in the said Government College, i.e. Bhadrak College, whereas the Opp. Party secured 15th position & was appointed as a Lecturer in a Government College, i.e. Angul College. It is also contended by the Opp. Party that by reckoning the entire period of service rendered by Shri Das as ad hoc lecturer in Government College, he was given all service benefits, whereas the service rendered by the Opp. Party in Non-Government colleges as ad hoc lecturer was not counted towards service benefits. 8. According to the Opp. Party, after the selection was made the Opp. Party was directed to work in a Non-Government College, whereas Shri Das was directed to work in a Government College. There was no role on the part of the Opp. Party to choose the place of posting. 9. According to Learned State Counsel, the case of Shri Das was considered applying the amended provisions of the Rules, which has been notified on 8.12.1995. Interpreting that provision, Learned State Counsel submits that the said provision is applicable to the Lecturers who were appointed in aided Government Colleges. 10 The Tribunal in the 4th paragraph of its Judgment relied on a letter dated 27.11.1990 issued by the UGC to the State Government. The relevant portion of such letter is quoted hereinbelow:- "The Commission in consultation with Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) reconsidered the matter at its meeting held on 11.10.1990 & resolved revised guidelines as follows for counting of previous service for purpose of senior scale/selection grade under the career advancement scheme for lecturers." 1. The relevant portion of such letter is quoted hereinbelow:- "The Commission in consultation with Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) reconsidered the matter at its meeting held on 11.10.1990 & resolved revised guidelines as follows for counting of previous service for purpose of senior scale/selection grade under the career advancement scheme for lecturers." 1. Previous service without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent in a University/college national laboratory or other Scientific organizations (CSDR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC etc.) & as a UGC Research Scientist should be counted for placement of Lecturers in Senior Scale/ Selection Grade provided that : (a) the post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of a Lecturer; (b) the qualification, for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by UGC for the post of Lecturer; (c) the Lecturers concerned possessed the minimum qualification prescribed by UGC for appointment as Lecturers; (d) the post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Government; (e) the appointment was not ad hoc or in a leave vacancy or less than one year duration. 2. No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered." 11. In our considered opinion the Tribunal has rightly held that the aforesaid guideline of the UGC dated 27.11.1990 are applicable to the case of the Opp. Party & rightly directed the present Petitioners to count the period of service rendered by the Opp. Party in the Aided Non-Government Institution for the purpose of career advancement & make available the other consequential service benefits to the Opp. Party including seniority, promotion, if due & the arrears be paid to him. 12. The order passed by the Tribunal is a well-reasoned order & finds support from the guidelines of the UGC. We do not find any infirmity to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal in Annexure-5. The writ application is accordingly dismissed & the Order of the Tribunal is affirmed. I agree.