Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1062 (ALL)

RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-04-02

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, RAJES KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Vinay Shankar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Saral Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case set up in the writ petition are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed as Demonstrators on adhoc/temporary basis on 9.5.1988 and 12.8.1987 respectively. 3. By the order dated 2.5.1988, petitioner No. 1 was granted appointment as Demonstrator in Government Aryudivic College, Muzaffar Nagar and by order dated 29.7.1987, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Administrator in Government Ayurvedic College, Jhansi. 4. By the orders dated 20.1.2005 and 10.4.2002 issued by the Director, Ayurvedic & Unani Sewa, petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been regularised on their posts under the U.P. Regularization of adhoc appointments (On post within the perview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended by 3rd amendment rule dated 20.12.2001. 5. It appears that Rajkiya Ayurvedic & Unani Demonstrators Sangharsh Samiti, U.P., Lucknow and others filed WP NO. 2633 (SS) of 1993 before the High Court at Lucknow Bench claiming that since their job is similar to the job of Medical Officer in Ayurvedic Unani Services and they may also be treated as Medical Officers and further they may be granted revision on the pay-scale on the basis of Bajaj Committee. This writ petition was disposed of on 25.4.2005 directing the Government to consider the case of the petitioners and take final decisions regarding changing designation/nomenclature of the post of Demonstrator as well as revision of pay-scale. In pursuance thereof, the order dated 11.11.2005 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It has been observed that the teachers of the Ayurvedic Unani College are governed by the separate Rules and there is difference between the minimum qualification, procedure of the recruitment, their pay-scale and duties of the Teachers and Demonstrators. To challenge the aforesaid Government order, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. It appears that the Government has accepted the claim of the petitioner as a matter of policy and issued Government Order dated 28.9.2007 to the extent that in case those Demonstrators who have rendered 10 years of satisfactory service they may be entitled for pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500 which is payable to the Lecturer and also accepted to give them the designation of Lecturer. 8000-13500 which is payable to the Lecturer and also accepted to give them the designation of Lecturer. It is also provided that the Government Order will be effective from the date of amendment in the U.P. State Ayurvedic Evam Unani College Teachers Service Rules, 1990 (For short Rules, 1990) and by way of the amendment, the petitioner has challenged the Government Order dated 28.9.2007 on the ground that their services as Demonstrators may also be counted and they may be given benefit of pay-scale and nomenclature from the date they have been appointed as Demonstrators. 7. The Rules, 1990 has been amended by U.P. State Ayurvedic & Unani Colleges Teachers Service (First Amendment) Rule, 2008. Its clause (d) relates to the appointment of Lecturer by direct recruitment. It provides that such substantively Demonstrators working in the U.P. State Ayurvedic and Unani College who possess Bachlors degree in Ayurvedic or Unani recognizied by the Government and who have put in at least 10 years continuous satisfactory service as Demonstrator, shall be absorbed on the post of Lecturer in the pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500 from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh State Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges Teachers’ Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 and upon such absorption, the equal number of vacant posts of Lecturer shall be abolished in accordance with Government Order No. 2354/71-2-2007-431/95. Dated September 28, 2007, and the Demonstrators so absorbed shall be placed below the junior most person substantively appointed on the post of Lecturer prior to the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh State Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges Teachers’ Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2008. 8. By virtue of amendment, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been treated as Lecturers and provided the pay-scale of Lecturer w.e.f. 11.8.2008. He further submitted that grant of designation of Lecturer and the pay-scale from 11.8.2008 is unjustified and arbitrary and submitted that they are entitled to the pay-scale of the Lecturer and the designation from the date of their appointment. It is further submitted that the function of the Demonstrator and the Lecturer are the same and they may be treated as same on parity basis. 9. It is further submitted that the function of the Demonstrator and the Lecturer are the same and they may be treated as same on parity basis. 9. Sri Saral Srivastava, Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that prior to the amendment in the Rules, 1990, the teachers of the college were governed by the Rules but the Demonstrators were not governed by the said Rules as their minimum qualification and mode of recruitment was entirely different. They were not treated as Lecturer and were not entitled for the same pay-scale as was given to the Lecturer. It is only because the amendment made in the Rule, 1990 by U.P. State Ayurvedic & Unani Colleges Teachers Service (First Amendment) Rule, 2008, the Demonstrators have been absorbed on the post of Lecturer in the pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500 from the date of commencement of Rule i.e. 11.8.2008. Therefore, after their absorption they are treated as Lecturer and entitled for the pay-scale of the Lecturer. It is also submitted that it is a policy matter and this Court cannot interfere. Further, it has also been submitted that in the writ petition, the validity of U.P. State Ayurvedic & Unani Colleges Teachers Service (First Amendment) Rule, 2008 has not been challenged. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 10. We considered the rival submission and perused the record. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners have been engaged on adhoc/temporary basis as Demonstrator. Subsequently, their services have been regularized as Demonstrators. They were not governed by the aforesaid Rules under which the teachers of the Unani Colleges were governed. The State Government has never treated them as Lecturers. It is only by the aforesaid Rule, 2008, the Demonstrators have been absorbed on the post of Lecturers in the pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- from the date when the aforesaid Rule, 2008 came into force i.e. 11.8.2008. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they would be treated as Lecturer and entitled for the pay-scale from the date when they were appointed is wholly unjustified and has no substance. 12. It is a matter of policy that from which date the Demonstrators may be absorbed on the post of Lecturer. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We further find that the petitioners have not challenged the Rules, 2008 in the writ petition. 12. It is a matter of policy that from which date the Demonstrators may be absorbed on the post of Lecturer. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We further find that the petitioners have not challenged the Rules, 2008 in the writ petition. The G.O. dated 28.8.2007, which has been challenged by the amendment is superceded by the said Rules. 13. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.