Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 438 (KAR)

Sundara v. State of Karnataka

2022-03-31

SHANKAR GANAPATHI PANDIT

body2022
JUDGMENT Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - In W.P. No. 45569/2018, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No. dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure-G) by which, the petitioner's request for regularization of his service as Physical Education Teacher in 4th respondent-College is rejected by the second respondent and for a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on completion of 10 years of service on par with that of the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of Persons Working on Part-Time Lecturers in the Karnataka General Services) (Department of Pre-University Education) (Special), Rules 2011 (for short "2011 Rules") and further to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner either in Pre-University College or in Degree College in the same Institute as Physical Education Teacher; and also for a direction to extend equal pay for equal work on the basis of principles of Article 39(D) of the Constitution of India and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Of Punjab v/s. Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 . 2. In W.P. No. 11074/2019, the petitioner is before this Court praying for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the Notification dated 23.02.2019 by which, the 3rd respondent-Management invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up various vacant posts including that of Physical Education Teacher and also for a direction to the respondents to pay entire salary for 17 years from the date of initial appointment till date. 3. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. 4. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri V. Lakshminarayana along with learned counsel Sri Pratham N., for Balaji Associates for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. M.C. Nagashree for respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajagopal along with learned counsel Sri M. Subramanya Bhat for respondent No. 3 and Sri Cyril Prasad Pais, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Perused the writ petition papers and the citations placed on record by both the parties. 5. Perused the writ petition papers and the citations placed on record by both the parties. 5. The petitioner who possesses qualification of Master of Physical Education and Sports (MPES) with First Class and M. Phil, applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher in pursuance of the paper publication dated 20.07.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent-College inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post of Physical Director temporarily. The Notification indicates the qualification of M.P.Ed. or Equivalent Degree to the post of Physical Director which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. In pursuance of the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Physical Education Teacher by proceedings of the 3rd respondent-College dated 30.07.2001 (Annexure-B). The order of appointment makes it clear that the appointment is on temporary basis and that the petitioner would be governed by all the Rules and Regulations framed by the College/Management from time to time. The second respondent under letter dated 31.07.2008 sought information from the 4th respondent-Principal with regard to vacancy of the Physical Education Teacher and as to whether the said post is an approved post. The 4th respondent replied as per Annexure-D dated 06.03.2009 intimating the Department that prior to bifurcation of Degree and Pre-University College, there was one approved post of Physical Education Teacher which is vacant in the Degree College. The statement appended to the said letter indicates that one post of Physical Education Teacher at Degree College is vacant and there is no approved post of Physical Education Teacher in the Pre-University college. The petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 21314/2014 praying for a direction to consider his case for regularization as the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of service against the sanctioned post. This Court, by order dated 11.04.2017 directed the respondent-Authorities to consider his representation within a time frame and to pass orders. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, respondent No. 2 issued impugned endorsement dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure-G) stating that the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization since his appointment is not by following the procedure as contemplated under the Karnataka Education Institutions Collegiate Education) Rules 2003 (for short "2003 Rules") and also that the petitioner has not completed 10 years as on the date of UMADEVI case. 6. 6. In W.P. No. 11704/2019, the respondent-College on getting permission from the Department for recruitment of teachers issued paper publication for filling up vacant posts including that of Physical Education Teacher. At that point of time, the petitioner filed the writ petition with a prayer to quash the Notification inviting applications insofar as Physical Education Teacher is concerned. This Court, by order dated 19.03.2019 stayed the Notification inviting applications and subsequently this Court by order dated 17.07.2019 modified the interim order to the extent of permitting the College to proceed with the Advertisement and not to issue appointment order insofar as Physical Education Teacher/Director is concerned. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as on this date, the petitioner is working as Physical Education Teacher/Director in the 4th respondent/College for more than 20 years and the petitioner would be entitled for regularization since he possesses the requisite qualification and working against sanctioned and approved post. It is submitted that the petitioner is working on full-time basis and he is discharging duties as full-time Physical Education Teacher/Director. Respondent No. 3/College is an aided Institution and there is no justification for respondents No. 3 and 4 to deny regularization to the petitioner since the petitioner is appointed in pursuance of the Notification inviting applications dated 20.07.2001 (Annexure-A). Learned Senior Counsel submits that since the petitioner is working for the last 17 years, it indicates the need and requirement of services of the petitioner and hence he is continued so long. It is his submission that the person who was working as Physical Education Teacher retired from service in the year 2001 and on the vacancy created by virtue of retirement, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher. The post in which the petitioner is working is a permanent and approved post. Since the petitioner is working in the permanent and approved post and since the petitioner is not continued in pursuance of any interim order by the Court or Tribunal, the petitioner would fulfill the conditions enumerated in the case of Secretary, State Of Karnataka And Others vs. Umadevi And Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and he would be entitled for regularization. 8. Learned Senior Counsel taking through the 2011 Rules submits that there cannot be any discrimination between the Government teachers and teachers working in the aided institutions. 8. Learned Senior Counsel taking through the 2011 Rules submits that there cannot be any discrimination between the Government teachers and teachers working in the aided institutions. In accordance with the provisions of 2011 Rules, the petitioner even though working as Lecturer in the aided institution, would be entitled for regularization in accordance with 2011 Rules. Further, learned Senior counsel also invites attention of this Court to Karnataka Educational Institutions (Absorption of Persons Working as Part-Time Lecturers in the Aided Private Educational Institutions) (Special) Rules, 2010 (for short "2010 Rules") and also Annexure-R and submits that the petitioner fulfills the conditions stated therein and would be entitled for regularization in accordance with the said Rules. 9. Learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that if a person continues to work in an approved and sanctioned post for more than 10 years, services of such person or employee could be regularized in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UMADEVI case. He submits that an employee or person who has completed 10 years of service as on the date of UMADEVI case only could be regularized is not correct and in that regard, he relies upon a decision of the has in Malathi Das (Retired) Now P.B. Mahishy and Others v/s. Suresh And Others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249 ; (2018) 8 SCC 238 in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari And Others v/s. State Of Jharkhand And Others; Rajnish Kumar Mishra And Others v/s. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 648. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that as the petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service as on this date, the petitioner would be entitled for regularization. The endorsement issued by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as on the date of UMADEVI case is opposed to the decisions referred to above and further submits that the petitioner was appointed by following procedure by inviting applications through paper publication. Learned Senior counsel also submits that since the petitioner is performing and discharging duties against a permanent and approved post, he would be entitled for equal salary as that of a permanent teacher. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petitions. 10. Learned Senior counsel also submits that since the petitioner is performing and discharging duties against a permanent and approved post, he would be entitled for equal salary as that of a permanent teacher. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petitions. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the post of Physical Education Teacher in Pre-University College of 3rd respondent is not an approved post and the petitioner has also not placed on record any document to establish that the post of Physical Education Teacher at Pre-University College of 3rd respondent is an approved or sanctioned post. It is submitted that prior to 2001, there was composite college of Degree and Pre-University. At the request of 3rd respondent-Management, the college was bifurcated into Degree and Pre-University College. The approved post of Physical Education Teacher subsequently was with the Degree college and the post of Physical Education Teacher at Pre-University college was not approved nor sanctioned post. Learned AGA invites attention of this Court to Annexure-A/Advertisement dated 20.07.2001 wherein the applications were invited to fill up temporary posts of Lecturers including that of Physical Education Teacher/Director, which explicitly makes it clear that it is to fill up temporary posts of Lecturers. Moreover, she submits that while the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in pursuance of Annexure-A/Notification, the 3rd respondent-College has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajagopal appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner is not appointed or working as against the sanctioned or approved post of Physical Education Teacher/Director. It is his submission that Annexure-A/Notification inviting applications whereunder the petitioner was appointed temporarily, makes it clear that the applications are invited to fill up temporary Lecturer posts including that of Physical Education Teacher/Director and also invites attention of this Court to the proceedings of appointment at Annexure-B dated 30.07.2001 to show that the appointment is on temporary basis. Learned Senior counsel submits that at the request of 3rd respondent-Management, the second respondent passed an order dated 02.08.2001 bifurcating Degree and Pre-University Colleges which is placed on record along with the memo dated 07.12.2021. Annexure-1 appended to the said order indicates allotment of post of Physical Education Teacher/Director to the Degree College. Learned Senior counsel submits that at the request of 3rd respondent-Management, the second respondent passed an order dated 02.08.2001 bifurcating Degree and Pre-University Colleges which is placed on record along with the memo dated 07.12.2021. Annexure-1 appended to the said order indicates allotment of post of Physical Education Teacher/Director to the Degree College. Thus, he submits that only one approved sanctioned post of Physical Education Teacher was available and the same was allotted to the Degree college. The petitioner was appointed in the year 2001 temporarily as Physical Education Director. Learned Senior counsel would submit that since the appointment of the petitioner is not against a sanctioned post and since the appointment of the petitioner is not approved by the Department, the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization. Further, he also submits that the petitioner would not possess requisite qualification of passing National Eligibility Test (NET). Learned Senior Counsel inviting attention to 2011 Rules, submits that it would have no application to the petitioner's case since the said Rules was specifically applicable to the posts in Government Pre-University Colleges. Since the petitioner is working in a private aided college, the said 2011 Rules would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Further, learned Senior Counsel referring to 2010 Rules submits that even though the said Rules is applicable to Aided Private Educational Institutions, the petitioner would not fulfill the conditions laid down therein. He invites attention to Rule 2(c)(i) and (iii) to contend that to get the benefit of 2010 Rules, the petitioner who claims that he is a Scheduled Caste category person ought to have worked in any one of the academic year of 1993-94 or 1994-95. Since the petitioner is appointed in the year 2001, he would not fulfill the conditions laid down therein. Thus, he submits that the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit of 2010 Rules. 12. Learned Senior Counsel submits that regularization could be made only as per the Regularization Policy declared by the State Government. Nobody can claim regularization as a matter of right. Further, he submits that mere continuance for long period in a post would not entitle a person for regularization. He submits that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of UMADEVI case which was rendered in the year 2006. Nobody can claim regularization as a matter of right. Further, he submits that mere continuance for long period in a post would not entitle a person for regularization. He submits that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of UMADEVI case which was rendered in the year 2006. It is his submission that paragraph 53 of the UMADEVI case makes it clear that as a one time measure, the State Government could regularize daily wagers who have completed 10 years as on that date and who was working as against sanctioned post without the aid of any interim order from the Courts or Tribunals. 13. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization as Physical Education Teacher/Director in the 4th respondent college? 14. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization for the following reasons: The petitioner applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher/Director in pursuance of the paper advertisement issued by the 4th respondent-College as per Annexure-A dated 20.07.2001. The advertisement itself makes it clear that it is to fill up temporary posts of Lecturers in the college including that of Physical Education Director. The appointment letter at Annexure-B dated 30.07.2001 also makes it clear that the appointment of the petitioner is on temporary basis. Till 2001, the Degree and Pre-University college was composite college and one approved and sanctioned post of Physical Education Teacher was existing. One Mr. Sequera was working in the said post. Subsequent to his retirement, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on temporary basis. The order dated 02.08.2001 subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner bifurcates the Degree as well as Pre-University College. Annexure-1 appended to the said order indicates allotment of sanctioned post of Physical Education Teacher to Degree college whereas the petitioner is continued as Physical Education Teacher in Pre-University College where there was no sanctioned or approved post of Physical Education Director. The statement forwarded by 3rd respondent/Management to the joint Director of Pre-University College at Annexure-D indicates that there was no approved or sanctioned post of Physical Education Teacher in Pre-University College. The statement forwarded by 3rd respondent/Management to the joint Director of Pre-University College at Annexure-D indicates that there was no approved or sanctioned post of Physical Education Teacher in Pre-University College. The petitioner's appointment as Physical Education Teacher on temporary basis is not approved by the Department and the petitioner continued to work temporarily without the approval of the Department. The petitioner has not placed on record any material or document to establish that his temporary appointment was approved by the competent authority and he has failed to establish that the temporary appointment of the petitioner is against a sanctioned and approved post. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working in Pre-University college as Physical Education teacher whereas on bifurcation of Degree and Pre-University college in the year 2001, the sanction post of Physical Education teacher is allotted to Degree college. Unless one works or discharges duty in a sanctioned vacancy and appointed by following the statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment, he would not be entitled for regularization. 15. Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Regularization of appointment means making an irregular appointment regular. Regularization could be only in accordance with the policy of the State Government or the authority which is empowered to appoint a person to a post. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Of Karnataka v/s. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , on survey of all earlier decisions relating to regularization held that "the wide powers under Article 226 are not intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognized by our Constitution". Further it is held that the High Courts acting under Article 226 should not, therefore, ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (supra) permitted as a one time measure regularization of irregularly appointed persons. Paragraph 53 reads as follows: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (supra) permitted as a one time measure regularization of irregularly appointed persons. Paragraph 53 reads as follows: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." A reading of the above paragraph of Umadevi (Supra) judgment, it makes it clear that regularization of irregularly appointed persons could be taken up as a one time measure only if an employee fulfill certain conditions such as (a) the employee concerned should have worked for ten years or more in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal, which means the employee appointed temporarily should have continued in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years; (b) the appointment of such employee should not be illegal even if irregular. The appointment of such employee if it is not against sanctioned post or where such person do not possess prescribed minimum qualification, such appointment would be illegal and he would not be entitled for regularization. 16. In the case on hand, the petitioner is not working against sanctioned post in the Pre-University college and the appointment of petitioner is not approved by the competent authority. Moreover, the petitioner had not completed ten years of service as on the date of Umadevi (supra) case. Therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization in terms of Umadevi (supra). 17. The learned Senior counsel Sri V. Laxminarayan for petitioner vehemently contended that the completion of ten years service need not be as on the date of the decision in Umadevi case, but even if a person completes ten years service subsequently also would be entitled for regularization. But the said contention cannot be accepted as no decision subsequent to Umadevi has held that a person who completes ten years of service subsequently also would be entitled for regularization. Learned Senior Counsel relying upon decisions stated supra tried to impress upon the Court that a person who completes ten years of service even after Umadevi would be entitled for regularization. But in none of the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel it is held that a person who completes ten years of service even after Umadevi would be entitled to regularization. Subsequent decision in State Of Karantak And Others v/s. M.L. Kesari And Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 explained the decision in UMADEVI. Paragraph 11 explains paragraph 53 of UMADEVI which reads as follows: "11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. The above paragraph makes it clear that as per UMADEVI a person who puts in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim order of Courts or Tribunals, before the date of decision in UMADEVI was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. 18. A perusal of 2011 Rules makes it clear that the said Rules would be applicable to part-time Lecturers working in Government Pre-University College and it would have no application to the Lecturers working in private aided college. The definition of part-time Lecturer under 2011 Rules means, a person who was appointed as part-time Lecturer against full-time sanctioned post in a Government Pre-University College. Since the petitioner is not working against full-time sanctioned post in Government Pre-University college, 2011 Rules would have no application to the case of the petitioner. 19. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that under 2010 Rules: Karnataka Educational Institutions (Absorption of Persons Working as Part-time Lecturers in the Aided Private Educational Institutions) (Special) Rules, 2010, the petitioner would be entitled for regularization, which is placed on record as Annexure-R. 2010 Rules, no doubt applies to the part-time Lecturers in the Aided Private Educational Institutions. 19. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that under 2010 Rules: Karnataka Educational Institutions (Absorption of Persons Working as Part-time Lecturers in the Aided Private Educational Institutions) (Special) Rules, 2010, the petitioner would be entitled for regularization, which is placed on record as Annexure-R. 2010 Rules, no doubt applies to the part-time Lecturers in the Aided Private Educational Institutions. Part-time Lecturer under 2010 Rules means a person appointed in a Private Aided I Grade College and working or worked as such, with the approval or permission of the Director or Commissioner of Collegiate Education and who has worked as such for not less than two academic years 1993-94 and 1994-95. In case of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, must have worked as such for not less than one academic year either during 1993-94 or 1994-95. The petitioner in the instant case was appointed temporarily on 30.07.2001. Since the petitioner is appointed in the year 2001, he would not fulfill the conditions enumerated in the definition clause of Part-Time Lecturer under 2010 Rules. The petitioner is appointed in the year 2001, he would not fulfill the condition of working not less than two academic years 1993-94 and 1994-95 or one academic year in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Thus, the said Rule would have no application to the case of the petitioner. In Malathi Das case supra the Apex Court was examining the appeal filed against an order, finding prima facie guilty of commission of contempt and in that circumstances held that the stand taken in refusing regularization cannot be countenanced, having regularized similarly placed persons even after Umadevi's case. The fact situation in the present case is entirely different and Malathi Das case would not assist the petitioner in the present case. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari case supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering as to whether the State of Jharkhand was right in denying the benefit of regularization in view of the provisions of the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015, on the ground the petitioner therein had not completed ten years as on the date of decision of Umadevi. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of regularization Rules at paragraph 10 has held as follows:- "10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of regularization Rules at paragraph 10 has held as follows:- "10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc." In the State of Karnataka, there is no such Rule and petitioner's prayer is not based on any Rules which permits regularization. The decision in Rajnish Kumar Mishra case supra was considering as a case of regularization under Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Adhoc Appointment of post within the purview of Public Service Commission Rules, 1979, as amended in the year 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant's case therein was required to be taken into consideration in view of the exception carved out in Umadevi's case cited supra. Therefore, the decision in Rajnish Kumar case cited supra would also not assist the case of the petitioner. 20. To consider the prayer of the petitioner to extend equal pay for equal work, the petitioner has not made available any details. The petitioner has not stated as to what is the pay that the petitioner is receiving as on the date of filing the petition and the pay which the respondent-Management has denied. At paragraph 15 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has the qualification attached to the post and there is no justification to deny the relief of not only the full salary to the petitioner but also equal pay for equal work. It is well settled law that only because the nature of work is the same the petitioner cannot seek equal pay for equal work, but it would depend upon the educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors. Financial capacity of the Management is also a factor, which is to be considered and it is to be noted that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right. Equal pay for equal work could be claimed only against the State and not against an unaided private school or unaided post. Financial capacity of the Management is also a factor, which is to be considered and it is to be noted that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right. Equal pay for equal work could be claimed only against the State and not against an unaided private school or unaided post. In the instant case, the petitioner is working temporarily without approval of the competent authority against non-approved post. 21. The petitioner has specifically prayed for equal pay for equal work relying upon the decision in Jagjit Singh case supra. The issue for consideration in Jagjit Singh case was whether temporarily engaged Employees (Daily Wage employees, Adhoc Appointees, Employees Appointed on Casual Basis, Contractual Employees and the like), are entitled to minimum of regular pay scale along with D.A. (as revised from time to time), on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned posts? The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 42 of the Jagjit Singh case laid down principles for grant of equal pay for equal work. Relevant paragraphs 42.1 and 42.6 reads as follows:- "42(i). The 'onus of proof', of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see-the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case, (2003 AIR SCW 2513), Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur, (2011 AIR SCW 940) the Steel Authority of India Limited case, ( AIR 2011 SC 897 ) and the National Aluminum Company Limited case) : (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1469). 42(vi). For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see-the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case) (2003 AIR SCW 2513)." 22. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not established with particulars that the post held by him, required to discharge equal work or same work discharged by regular employee. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see-the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case) (2003 AIR SCW 2513)." 22. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not established with particulars that the post held by him, required to discharge equal work or same work discharged by regular employee. Moreover, this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is appointed on temporary, non-approved post. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the Management establishing his right for equal pay for equal work. 23. Insofar as prayer of the petitioner in W.P. No. 11075/2019 not to give effect to the notification dated 22.03.2019 issued by the respondent No. 3/Management to fill up the post of Physical Education Director, this Court, by order dated 17.07.2019 permitted the 3rd respondent-College to proceed with the advertisement with an observation that order of appointment shall not be issued in respect of Physical Education Director and selection would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The additional statement of objections of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 makes it clear that the petitioner has failed to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance of the notification dated 22.03.2019. When the petitioner has not participated in the selection process, the petitioner is not entitled to interdict the selection process. 24. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in both the writ petitions and accordingly, both the writ petitions are rejected.