Bombay High Court
Bombay University And College ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 21 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990(3)BOMCR751, [1991(61)FLR459]
JUDGMENT S.M. Daud, J.
1. The short question arising for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could give a word-of-mouth or written direction in contravention of Government Resolution dated 1st June, 1981 which is Exhibit E to the petition compilation ?
2. Exhibit 'E' came to be issued because of the need for prescribing uniform norms for a minimum work-load to govern full-time as also part-time teachers in Colleges of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education affiliated to non-agricultural universities. The workload of a full-time teacher was set out in para 2 of the G.R. aforementioned in these words:---
"As recommended by the University Grants Commission, the overall work-load of a full time college teacher will be 40 clock hours per week. Out or these 40 clock hours, the teacher is expected to put in work of 20 clock hours per week on the college premises. Of the 20 clock hours, the class room instruction work would consist of 17 lectures each of 45 minutes duration and 3 tutorials each of 45 minutes duration per week together equivalent to 15 clock hours per week. In case of colleges affiliated to any University having no obligatory system of tutorials, the teacher himself on his own will make good the short-fall in the prescribed work-load by engaging extra classes for intensive teaching of students in his own subject. The remaining 5 clock hours on the premises should be spent by a full time teacher on guidance, consultation by students, curricular and extra curricular activities, administration and professional work etc."
Turning to the work-load for part-time college teachers the resolution says:---
"Orders have already been issued prescribing a regular pay scale for part-time teachers which is equivalent to half the pay scale applicable to full-time teachers. It is hereby clarified that the maximum workload of a part-time teacher in colleges should be more than half of the wokload of full time teacher viz. 11 periods of 45 minutes, subject to a teaching work of minimum 8 periods of 45 minutes per week. This would mean a part-time teacher entitled to the revised time scale will be engaging minimum of 8 and maximum of 11 periods per week."
In other words, the work load for a part-time teacher was to range between 8 to 11 periods per week, each of duration of 45 minutes. Having issued the G.R. respondents Nos. 1 and 2 appear to have had second thoughts and they started insisting on part-time teachers being required to give a turn-out of 11 periods per week each period being of 45 minutes duration. The part time teachers resented this and made representation to the colleges in which they were teaching. One of the colleges, viz., respondent No. 5, through its Principal gave a reply which is at Exh.J. The important recital therefrom is worded as follows:-
"The prescription of maximum 11 periods per part-timer, requires the management to allot 11 periods per teacher, which the grant sanctioning authorities, i.e. the Administrative officer also demands."
About a year earlier i.e. on 28th April, 1982, respondent No. 2 had addressed Exh. G dated 28th April, 1982 to respondent No. 4 saying that colleges could allot 8 lectures to part-time teachers. In view of Exh. J. the grant receiving colleges found it difficult to restrict the periods allocable to part-timers to only 8. It is that which has given rise to the instant petition.
3. All the Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could say in defence of the letter at Exh. J is that the impugned action does not violate the G.R. which prescribed a maximum of 11 periods to be taken by part-timers and the colleges being asked to insist upon their part-timers giving this turn-out. This submission is not correct, for under the rule reproduced above, colleges had the discretion to exact a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 11 periods from part-timers. Having given that discretion legally to the colleges, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could not by an executive fiat go back and insist that the minimum was the peak prescribed for part-time teachers. Colleges had the discretion to make an allocation within the floor and the peak range and this discretion could not be taken away by word-of-mouth or written directions in contravention of the G.R. The petition succeeds and hence the order:---
Declared that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall not make it a condition of grant to the colleges that their part-timers put in a minimum of 11 periods per week, each period being of 45 minutes. The colleges will permit part-timers the minimum and maximum prescribed by the G.R. in the light of their requirements. Rule in the above terms is made absolute, with parties being left to bear their own costs.