Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 332 (GUJ)

Prarthana Manish Purohit v. State of Gujarat

2022-02-24

BIREN VAISHNAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State 2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing today. 3. In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers of the petitioners to grant them the benefit of selection grade of Rs.12,000-18,300/-. Also under the challenge in these petitions are communication dated 1.6.2015 by which the case of the petitioners for the grant of selection grade as prayed for was rejected on the ground that the petitioners have undergone after 5.3.2010. 4. For the purposes of this judgment, facts of Special Civil Application No.13823 of 2019 are considered. 4.1. The petitioner obtained a degree in Bachelor (Electrical Engineering). She obtained Master Degree in the year 2015. Vide order dated 21.1.1994, she was appointed as lecturer, Electrical Engineering, Class-II on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.2,200-4,000/- After due selection process undertaken through the Gujarat Public Service Commission for direct recruitment, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Electrical Engineering) in A. V. Parekh Technical Institute, Rajkot vide order dated 29.6.1995. She completed her probation and by an order dated 31.1.1998, she was continued on long term basis. The pay scale of Rs.2,200-4000/- was revised to Rs.8,000-13,500/- with effect from 1.1.1996. Pursuant to a Resolution of All India Council for Technical Education for short `AICTE') of 30.12.1999, revision of pay was adopted by the State vide Resolution dated 20.6.2001. For being entitled to the senior scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- in accordance with the norms of AICTE which was followed by the State, on completion of six years of service and on participation in induction training, the petitioners were granted the benefit of senior scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- with effect from 21.9.2001. 4.2. The case of the petitioners is that on completion of five years experience in the lecturer (senior scale) on the consistent satisfactory performance, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of lecturer (selection grade) of Rs.12,000- 18,300/-. 5. Ms. Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to the AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999. She would submit that for the purposes of earning senior scale, training was necessary which the petitioners had undertaken. 5. Ms. Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to the AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999. She would submit that for the purposes of earning senior scale, training was necessary which the petitioners had undertaken. For the purposes of selection grade, what was necessary, was completion of five years of service in the lecturer (senior scale) and consistent satisfactory performance. No training was necessary. 5.1. That, according to her was also the yardstick by virtue of the Resolution of the State dated 20.6.2001. The selection committee after due consideration refused to extend the benefit of selection grade in the case of petitioners for the reasons as stated hereinabove, inasmuch as, stating that the petitioners had not undertaking training on 5.3.2010. 5.2. Ms. Panchal would submit that reading the notification of AICTE of 30.12.1999 together with the pari-materia of Notification of 20.6.2001 of the State, it was not necessary to undertake training for the purposes of earning selection grade. The communication dated 30.1.2001 annexed to the reply was that of the Director of Technical Education, who could not travel beyond the norms set up by the AICTE with the State was bound and did follow as is evident from the Resolution dated 20.6.2001. Therefore, in her submission, the reliance is placed on Clause 5 requiring the petitioners to undergo to refresher course was beyond the provisions of the norms stipulated by the AICTE. 6. Even otherwise, in the case of Mamta Champaklal Shah v. State of Gujarat, the selection grade given to her with effect from 11.7.2005, was subsequently withdrawn. That was a subject matter of challenge before this Court in SCA No.9712 of 2015. By an order dated 14.3.2016 passed in SCA No.9712/2015, the Court found that the action of withdrawing the selection grade was unjustified. The Court categorically observed that no training had been prescribed for the grant of selection grade. The oral was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the appeal. 7. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State would contend that the petitions are barred by delay and latches. The order under challenge is dated 1.6.2015 and the petitions are filed in the year 2019, after delay of four years. 7.1. The oral was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the appeal. 7. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State would contend that the petitions are barred by delay and latches. The order under challenge is dated 1.6.2015 and the petitions are filed in the year 2019, after delay of four years. 7.1. Even otherwise, in the case of Mamta Champaklal Shah (Supra) where the decision was rendered by the Court in the year 2016 and the Letters Patent Appeal No.1690 of 2017 was rejected on 4.10.2017 and the petitioners have remained salient for a period of two years. The fence-sitters, the petitioners cannot now come to the Court seeking the benefit of the judgment dated 14.3.2016 rendered in SCA No.9712 of 2015. 7.2. Even otherwise, the decision rendered in SCA No.9712 of 2015 did not consider the Circular of 30.6.2001. On clause 5 regarding providing of two years refresher course, she would submit that the Screening Committee, at the relevant point of time in the June, 2015 had taken an appropriate decision and this Court should not undertake the exercise of judicial review which was taken in accordance with the policy. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, dealing with the preliminary contention of delay at the hands of the petitioners, what is evident is that Ms. Mamta Champaklal Shah (Supra) was granted the benefit of selection grade on completion of five years with effect from 11.7.2005 by a DPC which met on 15.10.2009. The same was withdrawn on 30.7.2012 by the Screening Committee. It appears that an order was issued on 1.6.2015. After 3 years of the Screening Committee having also concluded that Mamta Champaklal Shah, the petitioner of SCA No.9712/2015 was not entitled to selection grade, withdrawing the selection grade. That was the subject matter of challenge in SCA No.9712/2015, where the Court categorically while observing that the withdrawal was bad observed that "it appears that the authority concerned has overlooked the fact that according to the Government Resolution dated 20th June, 2001 which is based on the recommendations of the AICTE, no training has been prescribed for grant of the Selection Grade." 9. True it is, that the decision was rendered on 14.3.2016 and the Appeal against the order by the State failed on 4.10.2017. True it is, that the decision was rendered on 14.3.2016 and the Appeal against the order by the State failed on 4.10.2017. On record, it appears that the petitioner of SCA No.9712 of 2015 got the restoration of that benefit on 30.8.2018. That is evident from a representation dated 11.9.2018 filed by the petitioners. Apparently, therefore, within a month from the date when the benefit of the judgment was rendered to Ms. Mamta Champaklal Shah; petitioner of SCA No.9712/2015, the petitioners of the present petitions had approached the authorities for extending the same benefits. Representation was forwarded by a reminder on 9.1.2019 together with the Resolution of Government to the GAD dated 22.8.2014 invoking the principle of granting similar benefits to the colleagues who were similarly situated without approaching to the Court. The objection of delay therefore cannot be considered. 10. For the sake of convenience, Clause 8.3 of notification dated 30.12.2019 reproduced hereunder: 8.3. Lecturer (Selection Grade): A Senior Lecturer/Lecturer (Senior Scale) who has a Master's degree and 5 years experience as senior Lecture of Lecturer (Senior Scale), and has consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports will be eligible to be placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade), subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee." 11. The State adopting the same also provided for stipulation of completion of five years in the notification of 20.6.2001 since it is on the same terms and conditions. The same need not be reproduced. It leads to a state that a senior lecturer/lecturer (senior scale) who has Master's degree and five years experience as senior lecturer of lecturer (senior scale) and has consistently satisfactory performance will be eligible for lecturer (selection grade). It is also a matter of record of Resolution of 31.12.2012, the State Government gave relaxation in favour of those lecturers who had been appointed prior to 1.1.1996 waiving requirement of Master degree. Admittedly, therefore, there was no requirement of completing any induction course, training course or an orientation course in accordance with the prescribed by the AICTE. That is also evident from the observations of the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1690/2017 filed by the State in which the State failed. Paragraph No.5 of decision dated 4.10.2017 passed in LPA No.1690/2017 reproduced hereunder: "5. That is also evident from the observations of the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1690/2017 filed by the State in which the State failed. Paragraph No.5 of decision dated 4.10.2017 passed in LPA No.1690/2017 reproduced hereunder: "5. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Government Polytechnic after following the due procedure. Her pay scale was revised in the year 1996 and thereafter in the year 1999, AICTE recommended revision of pay scales and service conditions of the teachers of technical institutions. Relying upon the recommendations of AICTE, the respondent-state considered the eligibility criteria of various employees including the petitioner and initially senior scale was granted to the petitioner as per the decision taken by the Screening Committee. The same was verified by the audit department. Thereafter, as per the recommendation of AICTE, the petitioner was eligible to get selection grade as the petitioner was possessing masters degree and five years experience as Lecturer (senior scale). The concerned Selection committee considered the case of the petitioner and found that the petitioner is eligible to get the selection grade as per the norms of AICTE and therefore the concerned Selection Committee granted selection grade to the petitioner by an order dated 16.10.2009 with effect from 11.7.2005. From the record, it appears that the only grievance of the respondent-state was that the petitioner has not undergone the training and therefore selection grade was wrongly granted to the petitioner. However, during the course of submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader failed to point out any provision or guideline issued by the AICTE which prescribes for training before granting selection grade to the concerned Lecturer. Learned single Judge has also rightly observed that which type of training was required to be undergone by the petitioner has not been stated in the impugned order dated 1.6.2015 passed by the respondent-state. Hence, once the case of the petitioner is considered by the Selection Committee which has recommended grant of selection grade to the petitioner and the same was verified by the concerned Audit department, there was no reason for the respondent-state to withdraw the selection grade after a period of ten years." 12. Hence, once the case of the petitioner is considered by the Selection Committee which has recommended grant of selection grade to the petitioner and the same was verified by the concerned Audit department, there was no reason for the respondent-state to withdraw the selection grade after a period of ten years." 12. Admittedly, the communication of June 2001 with the State arks on "to deny the benefit of selection grade on the basis of the petitioners having failed to undertake training cannot be of use, inasmuch as, the same cannot travel beyond the norms of the AICTE." 13. Admittedly, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of selection grade on completion of five years from the date when they were granted selection (senior scale). 14. In case of the petitioner of SCA No.13823/2019, the senior scale was granted with effect from 21.9.2001, whereas, in the case of the petitioners of SCA Nos.13824/2019 and 13825/2019, the same was granted on 3.8.2000 and 20.7.2001 respectively. All the petitioners therefore would be entitled to the benefit of selection grade of Rs.12,000-18,300/- from their respective due dates on completion of five years from the date of their selection scale. Appropriate revision of pay be done by granting them the benefit of grade of Rs.12,000-18,300/- from their respective due dates. Consequential benefits alongwith the arrears of pay be awarded and granted to the petitioners within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The communication dated 1.6.2015 is quashed and set aside. 15. All these petitions are allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.