Gujarat High Court
Akhil Gujarat Part Time Lecturers ... vs State Of Gujarat Thro Chief Secretary & 3 on 8 September, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 7212 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10240 of 2012
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10240 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5511 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10240 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowedNo
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ofNo
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question ofNo
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
AKHIL GUJARAT PART TIME LECTURERS ASSOCIATION &
2....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO CHIEF SECRETARY & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MITUL K SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
Page 1 of 70
HC-NIC Page 1 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015
C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 08/09/2015
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By this writapplication, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) To quash and set aside the impugned resolution dated 17.01.2012 (AA) To direct respondents and respondent no.1, 2 and 3 in particular to pay to the part time college teachers half/proportionate amount of the basic of the scale being paid at present to full time college teachers and proportionate increment, dearness allowance and other permissible benefits."
10(AA) with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006, the date from which recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were made applicable to the full Time College Teachers based on the decision of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India, dated 31.12.2008 and consequent resolution of the respondent State of Gujarat dated 11.11.2009 to implement the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations and to revise the pay scale for the Full Time College Teachers of Government Colleges, University Teachers and Teachers of Affiliated Colleges.
(B) To direct the respondents and the respondent State of Gujarat, Department of Higher Education in particular to consider giving pro rata revision in pay scales and fixed salary structure to the parttime lecturers including the petitioners teaching in affiliated Colleges and recognized Institutions Page 2 of 70 HC-NIC Page 2 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT affiliated to the respondent Gujarat University and other Universities on a prorata basis compared to the pay scales and salary structures of the fulltime college lecturers in the context of Sixth Pay Commission;
10(B) with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006, the date from which recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were made applicable to the Full Time College Teachers based on the decision of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India, dated 31.12.2008 and consequent resolution of the respondent State of Gujarat dated 11.11.2009 to implement the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations and to revise the pay scale for the Full Time College Teachers of Government Colleges. University Teachers and Teachers of Affiliated Colleges.
(C) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to direct respondents to place on record the actual decision in writing taken by the respondents pursuant to order passed by the Hon'ble Court dated 29.06.2011 in Special Civil Application No.7909 of 2011 and written and oral representations made by part time lecturers thereafter;
(D) During the pendency and/or final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to direct the respondents and the respondent State of Gujarat, Department of Higher Education in particular to consider giving pro rata revision in pay scales and fixed salary structure to the parttime lecturers including the petitioners teaching in affiliated Colleges and recognized Institutions affiliated to the respondent Gujarat University and other Universities on a pro rata basis compared to the pay scales and salary structures of the fulltime college lecturers in the context of Sixth Pay Commission;
(E) To award the costs of this petition;
(F) to pass such other and further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in Page 3 of 70 HC-NIC Page 3 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the interest of justice."
2. The petitioner No.1 is an Association of the part time lecturers in the State of Gujarat. The members of the Association are teaching in the colleges/institutions affiliated to the respective universities in the State of Gujarat.
In all there are about 300 part time lecturers.
The Association has been taking care of the grievances and problems of the part time lecturers in the State of Gujarat since long.
3. The petitioner No.2 claims to be a senior most part time Professor teaching in the college affiliated to the respondent Gujarat University.
He has been teaching since more than 30 years. At present he has been posted in the Commerce College, Ahmedabad and also at the Arts College, Ahmedabad.
4. The petitioner No.3 is also a part time college teacher serving past more than 14 years Page 4 of 70 HC-NIC Page 4 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT in the Arts and Commerce College, Balasind, Kheda.
5. The principle challenge in the present writ petition is to the resolution dated 17th January, 2012 passed by the State of Gujarat, Department of Higher Education whereby the pay scales and fixed salary structure along with the allowances for the part time college lecturers were revised and fixed. The part time college teachers are dissatisfied with the said revision and fixation of the pay scales mainly due to the following:
(a) The revision is very insignificant.
(b) As against the recommendation of the UGC, the rise given by way of revision in the pay scale of the part time lecturers is not pro rata in comparison to the revision introduced for the full time lecturers on implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendation by the respondent State of Gujarat.
Page 5 of 70HC-NIC Page 5 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT The UGC has been insisting that the part time and full time lecturers in the Country should be provided with a revision in the pay scale on a pro rata basis with whatever difference there may be in the respective pay scale and the fixed salary between the part time and full time lecturers.
(c) Even though part time and full time lecturers may constitute a separate class, yet the revision introduced by the impugned resolution is unjustified because the very factors considered for revision in the pay scale for the full time lecturers are applicable with the same force to the part time lectures and therefore, the revision is nothing but an eyewash.
(d) On one hand the State of Gujarat has accepted the recommendations of the UGC by giving a rise, though insignificant, and on the other hand by not revising the pay scale on a pro rata basis in comparison to the full time lecturers, the State Page 6 of 70 HC-NIC Page 6 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT of Gujarat has resorted to absolute discrimination.
(e) The UGC has also issued direction to the Registrar, Gujarat University for revision in the payscales and fixed salary structure for the guest as well as parttime lecturers of the colleges affiliated to it in February 2010. The UGC has not approved such disparity and it does not distinguish between the part time and full time lecturers for the purpose of revision.
6. This litigation has a history with regard to the revision of the pay scale for the part time lecturers. The part time college lecturers had first approached this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.10802 of 2003 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to issue directions to the State of Gujarat vide order dated 29th July, 2003 to consider the revision in the pay scale and fixed salary structure for the part time lecturers.
Page 7 of 70HC-NIC Page 7 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
7. It appears from the materials on record that the State of Gujarat effected the revision by a resolution dated 17th February, 2004. In the year 2006, three writapplications were filed (1) Special Civil Application No.21438 of 2006 (2) Special Civil Application No. 21439 of 2006 (3) Special Civil Application No. 21637 of 2006.
Those writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10th October, 2006 directing the State of Gujarat to consider the revision in the pay scale for the part time lecturers as more then three years had passed since the last revision was actually given effect to.
8. It appears that the State of Gujarat therefore, revised the fixed salary structure by a resolution dated 10th October, 2007. It appears that on account of the intervention of this Court the State effected the revision the pay scale every three years.
Page 8 of 70HC-NIC Page 8 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
9. After 2007, no revision was effected and the State Government did not consider the question of implementing the 6th Pay Commission recommendation in the case of the part time lecturers.
10. It appears that as more then four years had passed after the pay revision was introduced in the year 2007 and as the State Government decided not to revise the pay scale for the part time lecturers having implemented the 6th Pay Commission recommendation for the full time lecturers one more writapplication was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27th May, 2011 asking the part time lecturers to prefer a representation to the State Government in that regard.
11. It appears that pursuant to the representation filed by the part time lecturers they were heard in person by the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Gujarat.
Page 9 of 70HC-NIC Page 9 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
12. The State Government after taking into consideration the representation passed the impugned order resolution dated 16th January, 2012 revising the pay scale of the fixed salary for the part time lecturers in the State of Gujarat.
13. It is the case of the petitioners that the revision is absolutely insignificant and they have been throughly discriminated with the full time lecturers. It is there case that the pro rata increase by revision in the pay scale and the fixed salary have been denied to them. They seek parity in the pay scale in terms of the revision and pro rata increase.
14. The petitioners have placed on record a chart showing the pro rata calculations comparing the revised pay scale sanctioned in favour of the full time lecturers with that of the part time lecturers. The petitioner have also placed on Page 10 of 70 HC-NIC Page 10 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT record one another chart highlighting the disparity between the pay scale and the salary structure of the full time Professors as against the revised pay scale and the fixed salary structure provided by the impugned resolution dated 17th January, 2012.
15. Being dissatisfied with such action on the part of the State Government they have come up with this writapplication.
Submission of behalf of the petitioners
16. Mr. A.J. Yagnik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the impugned resolution is highly discriminatory and violative of the Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 39(a), 39(c), 39(d), 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India.
17. Mr. Yagnik invited the attention of the Court Page 11 of 70 HC-NIC Page 11 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Notification on the revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998.
Mr. Yagnik invited my attention to clause (12) of the said Notification with regard to the part time teachers. Clause (12) reads as under: "12.0.0 PARTTIME TEACHERS The minimum qualifications for appointment of parttime teachers should be the same as that of regular teachers and selected by regularly constituted Selection Committee. The parttime teachers should be appointed only in exceptional circumstances when it is appropriate to requirements of the institution in terms of subjects to be taught or workload. They can be appointed on a contract appointment if only for a short period or as permanent halftime/proportionate time employees against half/proportionate salary of the scale (and should include proportionate increments, dearness allowance and any other permissible benefits). Such permanent parttime teachers will also be entitled to the scheme of Career Advancement from Lecturer to Senior Scale Lecturer, Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader, and Professor. However, they will be entitled to half/proportionate amount of the basic of the scale and proportionate increments, dearness allowance and any other permissible benefits."
18. Mr. Yagnik also invited my attention to a letter addressed by the University Grants Page 12 of 70 HC-NIC Page 12 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Commission to the Registrar, South Gujarat University, Surat dated 5th February, 2010 as regards the revised guidelines in the scheme of appointment/honorarium of guest/part time teachers. The letter reads thus: UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARK NEW DELHI, 110002 No.F.101/2009(PS) February, 2010 "The Registrar, South Gujarat University, Surat395007 Sub.: Revised Guidelines for the Scheme of Appointment/Honorarium of Guest/PartTime Teachers.
Sir/Madam, I am directed to say that the UGC has accepted the recommendation of VI Pay Review Committee regarding revised guidelines for the Scheme of Appointment/Honorarium of Guest/Part Time Teachers.
The UGC has decided that the Guest/Parttime Teachers who possess the minimum qualification for the post of an Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1,000/ per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25,000/ per month. Revised guidelines for the appointment of Guest/Part Time Teachers are Page 13 of 70 HC-NIC Page 13 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT as under:
1. Guest/Parttime Teachers may be appointed only against sanctioned post.
2. The qualifications for Guest/Part time Teachers should be same as those prescribed for the regular teachers of Universities/Colleges in UGC's Regulation.
3. Selection procedure for appointing Guest/Part time Teachers should be same as for a regular appointed teachers.
4. Guest/Part time Teachers may not be treated like regular teachers of the faculty for the purpose of voting rights or for becoming the members of the board of studies.
5. Retired teachers may also be considered for appointment for Guest/Part time teachers.
6. Guest/Part time teachers may not be given the benefit of allowances, pension, gratuity etc. These guidelines will come into force w.e.f.1.1.2010.
The contents of the letter may be brought to the notice of all the affiliated Colleges/Institutions.
Yours faithfully (B.K. Singh) Deputy Secretary"
19. Mr. Yagnik submitted that the directions issued by the University Grants Commission are mandatory and the Government is obliged to implement the recommendations. He submitted that the State Government had been revising the pay Page 14 of 70 HC-NIC Page 14 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT scales and the fixed salary structure for the part time lecturers of the colleges at an interval of three years. The last revision was in the year 2007. According to Mr. Yagnik there is no good reason with the State Government for not revising the pay scales/fixed salary structure for the part time lecturers after a lapse of three years. He submitted that the action could be termed as exploitation of the part time lecturers by the State and therefore the same is violative of the Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
20. Mr. Yagnik submitted that vide Resolution dated 11th November, 2009, the State of Gujarat decided to implement the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and revised the pay scales with retrospective effect from 1st January, 2006 for the teachers of the Government Colleges, Universities and for teachers affiliated to the Universities. He submitted that in such circumstances the part time college teachers are Page 15 of 70 HC-NIC Page 15 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT also entitled to get the revision in the pay scale with effect from 1st January, 2006 and on a pro rata basis according to the University Grants Commission Notification of 1998.
21. He submitted that the State of Gujarat willingly accepted the recommendations of the University Grants Commission in the case of full time teachers teaching in the Government Colleges, Universities and Colleges affiliated to the respective Universities. According to him, there is no rational as to why the State of Gujarat could not revise the pay scale also for the part time teachers on the pro rata basis with effect from 1st January, 2006.
22. He submitted that the case of the petitioners merit consideration and the reliefs as prayed for may be granted.
Submission on behalf of the State Page 16 of 70 HC-NIC Page 16 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
23. Mr. Rohan Yagnik, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that no case for grant of any relief could be said to have been made out by the petitioners. His principal argument is that the directions or the instructions of the University Grants Commission are not binding on the State Government. He submitted that which part of the scheme of the University Grants Commission should be accepted and which part should not be within the discretion of the State Government.
24. He submitted that the part time college lecturers cannot be placed at par with the full time lecturers. He submitted that the appointment of a lecturer on part time basis is made as the work load is not adequate for the post of full time lecturer. He submitted that a full time lecturer takes around 18 lectures per week. As and when there is a short fail in the full work load of the lecturers and also shortage of a full Page 17 of 70 HC-NIC Page 17 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT time lecturer, the part time lecturers are being appointed to take care of the situation. He submitted that the State Government has been issuing NOC to appoint the part time and full time lecturer upon conditions prescribed by the State Government from time to time. He also pointed out that in the appointment letters itself there is a mention that the part time lecturer shall not have any right of permanent absorption as a full time teacher.
25. Mr. Yagnik submitted that a part time lecturer takes around 3 to 10 lectures in a week.
He also pointed out that the basic work of the part time lecturer is to give lectures in a particular college and for limited hours. They are not shouldered with any responsibility of any administrative work and are also not required to remain present in the college except for delivery of the lectures. He submitted that the full time lecturers also have to perform academic and administrative work.Page 18 of 70
HC-NIC Page 18 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
26. Mr. Yagnik pointed out that the part time lecturers are assigned administrative work like examination supervision, paper setting etc. and for that purpose the university pays them by way of special remuneration.
27. He submitted that the allegations of discrimination are baseless. He submitted that no parity can be claimed by the part time lecturers with the full time college teachers.
28. Mr. Yagnik clarified that the reliance placed by the petitioners on the communication of the University Grants Commission dated 5th February, 2010 is completely misplaced. He submitted that the communication is not applicable in the case of part time lecturers as the selection procedure of a part time teacher or a guest is not the same.Page 19 of 70
HC-NIC Page 19 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
29. Mr. Yagnik submitted that so far as the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission in the case of the full time teachers is concerned, it is the Central Government which provides 80% grant against the salary of the full time teachers whereas in the case of the part time teachers, the State Government has to bear the expenses.
30. Mr. Yagnik lastly submitted that although the State Government accepted the recommendations of the University Grants Commission pursuant to the resolution dated 24th December, 1998 yet it cannot be said that all the clauses of the scheme become applicable once the State Government accepts the scheme.
31. He submitted that there being no merit in the claim of the petitioners, the writ petition may be rejected.Page 20 of 70
HC-NIC Page 20 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Submissions on behalf of the UGC
32. Mr. Mitul Shelat, the learned advocate appearing for the University Grants Commission submitted that the Commission was constituted under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act No.3 of 1956) which came into force with effect from 5th November, 1956. He submitted that the Act was enacted to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in the Universities.
He submitted that the Commission has been vested with the power to recommend to any university the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advised the university upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of the said recommendation.
33. Mr. Shelat has placed reliance on the averments made in the affidavitinreply filed on behalf of the Commission. The averments made in the affidavitinreply filed by the commission Page 21 of 70 HC-NIC Page 21 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT are as under: "[4] That the University Grants Commission (hereinafter to be referred as "the Commission") has been constituted under the provisions of the university Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act No.3 of 1956) which came into force w.e.f. 5.11.1956. The Act was enacted to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in universities. The Commission under the provisions of the Act has been entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co ordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities. For the said purpose, the Commission has been vested with the power to recommend to any university the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advice the universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendation.
[5] That the Commission is also authorized to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of it's functions. Section 26 of the Act which gives power to the Commission to make regulations consistent with the Act, permits the Commission to define the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the university, having regard to the branch of education in which the applicant is expected to give instruction.
[6] That Section 2[f] of the University Grants Commission Act defines the University, which provides that:
"University means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the Regulations Page 22 of 70 HC-NIC Page 22 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT made this behalf under this Act."
[7] That Section 3 deals with the notification of deemed to be University providing that "The Central Government may, on advice of the Commission, declare by notification in the official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2.
[8] That Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act provides that it shall be the general duty of the commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other Bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of University Education and for the determination and maintenance of the standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. It further provides that for the aforesaid purpose of performing its functions under the Act, the Commission is also authorized to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions.
[9] That it is further submitted that for performing its general duties and its other functions under the University Grants Commission Act, the UGC is invested with the power specified in various clauses of Sections
12. These include the power to recommend to a University the measures necessary for the improvement of University Education and to advice in respect of the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation [clause d]. The UGC is also invested with the powers to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education Page 23 of 70 HC-NIC Page 23 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of such functions [clause j]. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid two clases i.e. clauses[d] & [j] of Section 12 in itself are wide enough to empower the UGC to frame the regulation. It is further submitted that Section 26[l][g] of the Act confers specific and sufficient power to the University Grants Commission to frame regulation regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities.
[10] That further section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 deals with the power of Commission to make regulations, among others, defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction and regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities.
[11] That it is further submitted that for performing its general duties and its other functions under the University Grants Commission Act, the UGC is invested with the power specified in various clauses of Sections
12. These include the power to recommend to a University the measures necessary for the improvement of University Education and to advice in respect of the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation [clause d]. The UGC is also invested with the powers to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of such functions [clause j]. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid two clauses i.e. clauses [d] &[j] of Section 12 in itself are wide enough to empower the UGC to frame the regulation. It is further submitted that Section 26[l][g] of the Act confers specific and sufficient power to the University Grants Commission to frame regulation regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities.
Page 24 of 70HC-NIC Page 24 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT [12] That it is respectfully submitted that so far as the post of guest faculty is concerned, the minimum eligibility prescribed by UGC is the same. It is submitted that a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Lecturer either on regular basis or on temporary basis must fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down by the UGC. It is relevant to state that UGC vide its Letter No. F.101/2009(PS) dated 06.02.2010 issued the revised guidelines for the scheme of appointment/honorarium of guest/part time teachers to the following effects: "I am directed to say that the UGC has accepted the recommendation of VI Pay Revision Committee regarding revised guidelines for the scheme of Appointment/Honorarium of Guest/part time Teachers.
The UGC has decided that the Guest/parttime Teachers who possess the minimum qualification for the post of an Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1,000/ per lecture to a maximum to Rs.25,000/ per month. Revised guidelines for the appointment of Guest/Parttime Teachers are as under:
1. Guest/Parttime Teachers may be appointed only against sanctioned post.
2. The qualification for Guest/Parttime Teachers should be same as those prescribed for the regular teachers of Universities/Colleges in UGC's Regulation.
3. Selection procedure for appointing Guest/Parttime Teachers should be the same as for a regularly appointed teachers.
4. Guest/Parttime Teachers may not be treated like regular teachers of the faculty for the purpose of voting rights or for becoming the members of the boards of studies.
5. Retired teachers may also be considered for appointment for Guest/Parttime teachers.
6. Guest/Parttime teachers may not be given the benefit of allowances, pension, gratuity etc. These guidelines will come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2010 The contents of the letter may be Page 25 of 70 HC-NIC Page 25 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT brought to the notice of all the affiliated colleges/institutions."
A true copy of the UGC letter No. F.10 1/2009(PS) dated 06.02.2010 is being annexed as Annexure R1.
[13] That it is relevant to state that subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of subsection (1) of Section 26 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), and in pursuance of the MHRD O.M.No.F.237/2008IFD dated 23rd October, 2008, read with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) O.M. No.F.11/2008IC dated 30th August, 2008, and in terms of the MHRD Notification No.132/2006U.II/U.I(1) issued on 31st December, 2008 and in supersession of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, issued by University Grants Commission vide Regulation No. F.31/2000(PS) dated 4th April, 2000, together with all amendments made therein from time to time, the University Grants Commission framed the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. The said regulation came into force with immediate effect and was published in the gazette of India on 18.09.2010.
[14] That it is submitted that the said regulation applies to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the university concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act.
[15] That it is submitted that Regulation 2 provides that the minimum qualification for Page 26 of 70 HC-NIC Page 26 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT appointment and other service conditions of University and college teachers, librarians and Directors of Physical Education and Sports as a measure for the maintenance of standards in higher education shall be as provided in the Annexure to the Regulations.
[16] That it is submitted that Clause 1.0.0 of the Annexure to the Regulation deals with coverage and provides as under: "1.1.1. For teachers in the Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, the norms/Regulations of Indian Council of Agricultural Research; for Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and AYUSH, the norms/Regulations of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; for Faculty of Education, the norms/regulations formulated in consultations with National Council of Teacher Education; for Engineering and Technology, Pharmacy and Management/Business Administration, the norms/Regulations formulated in consultations with All India Council for Technical Education; and the qualifications in the field of rehabilitation and special education at Degree, PG Diploma and Masters level, the norms/Regulations formulated in consultations with Rehabilitation Council of India, shall apply."
[17] That it is submitted that clause 13.0 of the aforesaid UGC Regulation, 2010 provides the following in respect of appointment on contract basis.
"13.0 APPOINTMENTS ON CONTRACT BASIS 13.1 The teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when the studentteacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a college/University. The qualifications and selection procedure for appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Page 27 of 70 HC-NIC Page 27 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Professor. Such appointments should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappointing her/him on contract basis for another session."
34. Mr. Shelat, in view of the above, submitted that the State has no discretion to accept the scheme in part and refuse to implement the other part of the scheme.
35. Mr. Shelat also pointed out that all the members of the Association are appointed as permanent part time lecturers against the sanctioned post in accordance with law after issue of advertisement, interview and selection by the panel constituted according to the respective university's Act and approved by the university to which the respective college is affiliated. He also clarified that not a single member of the association is visiting the faculty as a guest lecturer or a lecturer on adhoc basis for a temporary period. The selection procedure, qualifications and eligibility for the full time Page 28 of 70 HC-NIC Page 28 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT and part time lecturers are the same.
36. Mr. Shelat therefore prays that the petition filed by the Association merit consideration and reliefs prayed for may be granted.
Analysis:
37. Having heard the learned counsel appearing the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the recommendations of the University Grants Commission are binding to the State Government so far as the part time teachers are concerned.
38. The UGC Act has been enacted to ensure that there is coordination and determination of standards in universities, which are institutions of higher learning, by a body created by the Central Government. It is the duty and responsibility of the University Grants Page 29 of 70 HC-NIC Page 29 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Commission, which is established by Section 4 of the UGC Act, to determine and coordinate the standard of teaching curriculum and also the level of examination in various universities in the country. In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the role of the UGC comes at the threshold. The course of study, its nature and volume, has to be ascertained and determined before the commencement of the academic session.
Proper standard of teaching cannot be achieved unless there are adequate infrastructural facilities in the campus like classrooms, libraries, laboratories, wellequipped teaching staff of requisite calibre and a proper student teacher ratio. For this purpose, the Central Government has made a number of rules in exercise of powers conferred by Section 25 of the UGC Act and the Commission has also made regulations in exercise of power conferred by section 26 of the UGC Act and to mention a few, the UGC Inspection of Universities Rules, 1960, the UGC Regulations, 1985 regarding the Minimum Standards of Page 30 of 70 HC-NIC Page 30 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Instructions for the Grant of the First Degree, UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding the Minimum Qualifications for the Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, etc. UGC with the approval of the Central Government and exercising power under Section 22(3) of the UGC Act has issued a schedule of degrees which may be awarded by the universities. (See: Prem Chand Jain v.
R.K. Chhabra and Osmania University Teachers' Assn. V. State of A.P.)
39. It appears from the materials on record that the State Government vide its Resolution dated 30th May, 2015 has given 20% rise in the salary of the part time lecturers thereby the salary has been hiked as under: (1) From Rs.3900/ to Rs. 4680/ (2) From Rs.7800/ to Rs.9360/ (3) From Rs. 11700/ to Rs.14040/
40. The above would suggest that the part time Page 31 of 70 HC-NIC Page 31 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT teachers have been given rise of Rs.780/, 1560/ and 2340/ respectively.
41. It also appears from the materials on record that the rise in the salary of the part time lecturers between 2003 and 2015 is that of Rs.10,000/ and during this interregnum period two pay commissions have already been implemented but the benefit of the same was not extended to the part time lecturers. It also appears that the full time lecturers have been given a rise of more then Rs. 50,000/ in last 10 years. A full time lecturer appointed along with the part time teacher in 1998 is drawing the salary of not less then Rs,1,10,000/ whereas the part time lecturer receives the monthly salary of not more then Rs.14,000/.
42. Let me make myself very clear on one very important aspect. Although a lot has been argued regarding the difference between the full time lecturers and part time lecturers, it appears Page 32 of 70 HC-NIC Page 32 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT that all the members of the Association were appointed as permanent part time lecturers against the sanctioned posts in accordance with law, which included advertisement, interview and selection by the panel constituted under the respective universities Act and approved by the university to which the respective colleges are affiliated. I should also clarify that not a single member of the Association is visiting the faculty as a guest lecturer or a lecturer on ad hoc basis for a temporary period. More importantly the selection process, qualifications and eligibility for full time and part time lecturers are the same.
43. I am saying so on the basis of the appointment letters of some of the part time lecturers which are on record and even otherwise the same is not disputed by the other side.
44. The UGC itself made it clear that the guest part time teachers should be appointed only Page 33 of 70 HC-NIC Page 33 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT against the sanctioned post and there qualifications should also be same as those prescribed for the regular teachers of the university/colleges. The commission has also made it clear that the selection procedure appointing the part time teachers should also be the same as for a regularly appointed teachers. The only thing which the Commission has clarified is that the part time teachers may not be treated like regular teachers of the faculty for the purpose of voting rights or for becoming the members of the boards of studies and they may not be given the benefit of allowances, pension, gratuity etc.
45. However, in the 1998 Notification of the Commission it has been made abundantly clear that the part time lecturers should be appointed against selection/proportionate salary and the scale should include proportionate increments, dearness allowance and any other permissible benefits. The Commission has also said in its notification that such permanent part time Page 34 of 70 HC-NIC Page 34 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT teachers are also entitled to the scheme of career from the lecturer to senior scale lecturer, selection grade lecturer/reader, and Professor. The Commission has clarified that they are entitled to half/proportionate amount of the basic of the scale and proportionate increments, dearness allowances and any other permissible benefits.
46. The State Government has made its stance clear. In its further affidavit dated 22nd October, 2013 it has been stated that the scheme of the Commission has been partly accepted so far as the full time teachers are concerned. Thereby suggesting that the recommendations so far as the part time teachers are concerned have not been accepted.
47. The discrimination in terms of salary is writ large on the face of the record. As against the salary of 1,10,000/ drawn by the full time lecturer, the part time lecturers with the same Page 35 of 70 HC-NIC Page 35 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT qualifications and procedure of selection are paid about Rs.14000/ per month. Each of the members of the Association have put in by now about 20 years of service. As stated above, according to the 6th Pay Commission the full time lecturer appointed in 1998 in the colleges at present draw Rs.85,000/ as a monthly salary but a part time teacher appointed in 1998 with the same qualifications and the eligibility draws less then Rs.13000/ inclusive rise of Rs.300 per year. The difference is therefore of Rs.72000/.
It is also true that the full time teachers in the colleges conduct 18 lectures per week whereas the part time teachers conduct 10 lectures. This is the reason why the Commission has recommended that the part time teachers are entitled to draw salary on the basis of the pro rata rise in an ad valoram manner with the incidental and supplemented service benefits.
48. However, the principle question still remains to be answered whether the UGC regulations when Page 36 of 70 HC-NIC Page 36 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT it creates financial obligations upon a State are binding in or discretionary.
49. The regulations framed under the Act have a statutory force by virtue of Section 28 of the Act. However, the reading of the University Grants Commission Act does not disclose that the regulations framed have a binding force on the State Government. The provisions of Section 14 of the Act makes it very clear as to the consequences of noncompliance of the recommendations of the Commission. There is nothing for the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act to make the recommendations of the Commission mandatory and inviolable on the part of the university and State Government to comply. It is no doubt true that it is the UGC which alone can lay down the qualifications/guidelines required by a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the university or institution affiliated to it. No doubt, under entry 66 of listI of ScheduleVII Page 37 of 70 HC-NIC Page 37 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT to the Constitution of India it is the Central Government which has the power to lay down the standards of higher education. However, this does not give power to the Central Government to lay down the pay scales. The UGC has the power to lay down standards of qualifications which should be held by the holder of any post in the university but it cannot lay down the pay scales. The recommendations which the UGC makes with regard to the pay scales are only recommendatory in nature. If the State Government accepts the recommendations of the UGC, then they become binding but it is for the State Government to consider whether to adopt any particular recommendations of the UGC or not.
50. In the aforesaid context I may quote with profit a three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma V. State of Bihar and others, 2013 (8) SCC
633. In the said case the Supreme Court considered the question as regards the Page 38 of 70 HC-NIC Page 38 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT regulations/scheme framed by the UGC and its effect on the educational institutions run by a State under the State enactments, including the State Universities. The Supreme Court in that case was concerned with the scheme dated 31st December, 2008 framed by the UGC purporting to enhance the pay of teachers and other connected staff in the Central Universities/educational institutions, and also to increase their age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years. The State Governments were given the option to adopt the said scheme in its composite form, whereto the UGC agreed to bare 80% of the additional expenses incurred by the State in disbursement of salary up to 31st March, 2010. The Supreme Court took the view that the State Government was at liberty to frame its own rules relating to education in the state and was not bound to follow the regulations framed by the UGC. However, the Supreme Court said that where the state decides to adopt the regulations framed by the UGC, it is bound to abide by the stipulated conditions contained Page 39 of 70 HC-NIC Page 39 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT therein. It was further held, that there can be no automatic application of the regulations, scheme framed by the UGC in a State, without any conscious decision having been taken by the State Government in that regard on account of the financial implications and other consequences attached thereto. The Supreme Court finally concluded that where the State Government takes a positive decision to adopt a UGC scheme/regulations, the consequences envisaged in the regulations (Scheme) would automatically follow.
51. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79: "69. To some extent there is an air of redundancy in the prayers made on behalf of the respondents in the submissions made regarding the applicability of the Scheme to the State and its universities, colleges and other educational institutions. The elaborate arguments advanced in regard to the powers of UGC to frame such regulations and/or to direct the increase in the age of teachers from 62 to 65 years as a condition precedent for receiving Page 40 of 70 HC-NIC Page 40 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT aid from UGC, appears to have little relevance to the actual issue involved in these cases. That the Commission is empoweredto frame regulations under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research, cannot be denied. The question that assumes importance is whether in the process of framing such regulations, the Commission could alter the service conditions of the employees which were entirely under the control of the States in regard to State institutions?
70. The authority of the Commission to frame regulations with regard to the service conditions of teachers in the Centrallyfounded educational institutions is equally well established. As has been very rightly done in the instance case, the acceptance of the Scheme in its composite form has been left to the discretion of the State Governments. The concern of the State Governments and their authorities that UGC has no authority to impose any conditions with regard to its educational institution is clearly unfounded. There is no doubt that the Regulations framed by UGC related to Schedule VII List I Entry 66 to the Constitution, but it does not empower the Commission to alter any of the terms and contions of the enactments by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution. Under List III Entry 25, the State is entitled to enact its own laws with regard to the service conditions of the teachers and other staff of the universities and colleges within the State and the same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any Central legislation.
71. However, in the instant case, the said questions do not arise, inasmuch as, as mentioned hereinabove, the acceptance of the scheme in its composite form was made discretionary and, therefore, there was no compulsion on the State and its authorities to adopt the scheme. The problem lies in the desire of the State and its authorities to obtain the benefit of 80% of the salaries of the teachers and other staff under the scheme, Page 41 of 70 HC-NIC Page 41 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT without increasing the age of retirement from 62 to 65 years, or the subsequent condition regarding the taking over of the Scheme with its financial implications from 1042010.
72. As far as the States of Kerla and U.P. are concerned, they have their own problems which are localised and stand on a different footing from the other States, none of whom who appear to have the same problem. Education now being a List III subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by UGC. It is only natural that if they wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have to abide by the conditions as laid down by the Commission.
73. That leaves us with the question which is special to the State of Bihar i.e. the effect of Section 67(a) introduced into the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 67(a) has been extracted hereinbefore in para 14. while, on the one hand, it has been mentioned that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, rules, statutes, regulation or ordinance, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the university or of a college shall be the date on which he attains the age of 62 years, the confusion is created by the next sentence which further provides that the date of retirement of a teaching employee would be the same which would be decided by UGC. It has been urged that the said provision clearly contemplates that in the event of an alteration resulting in an upward revision of the age of superannuation, the same would automatically apply to all such teachers and staff, without any further decision of the State and its authorities in that regard. In other words, what has been sought to be urged is that when in regard to Centrallyfounded universities, colleges and educational institutions, the age of superannuation has been increased to 65 years by the University Grants Commission, the same has to uniformly apply to all universities and colleges Page 42 of 70 HC-NIC Page 42 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT throughout the country, without any discrimination. The same did not necessitate any separate decision to be taken by the State and its authorities regarding the applicability of the decision taken by the University Grants Commission.
74. The said submission, in our view, is not acceptable on account of the fact that in the first paragraph of Section 67(a) it has been categorically stated that the age of superannuation would be 62 years. The Second paragraph of the said section makes it even more clearer, since it reiterates that the date of retirement of nonteaching employees, other than the inferior servants, shall be the date on which he attains the age of 62 years. The first proviso also indicates that the university shall, in no case, extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non teaching employee after he attains the age of 62 years. The second proviso, however, States that even after retirement, teachers may be laid down in the Statutes made in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines of the Commission.
75. As against the above, certain writ petitions have been filed in the Patna High Court which rejected the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the Commission had not taken any conscious decision with regard to teachers and staff, except for those which were Centrallyfounded. Subsequently, however, since in its 452nd Meeting the Commission took a conscious decision and recommended that the report of the Pay Review Committee recommending the enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years be made applicable throughout the country, fresh writ petitions were filed in the Patna High Court, including CWJC No.2330 of 2009, filed by the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions upon holding that once the Commission had recommended that the age of superannuation be accepted as 65 years, the State Governments had no discretion but to enhance the age of superannuation in line with the recommendations made by the Commission. The Division Bench Page 43 of 70 HC-NIC Page 43 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT subsequently reversed the finding of the learned Single Judge, resulting in these special leave petitions (now appeals).
76. The learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. Gopal Singh, had in his submissions reiterated the views of the High Court i.e. that on mere communication, the revision of the pay of teachers and increase in the age of superannuation would not automatically become effective and that, in any event, the right to alter the terms and conditions of service of the (sic employees of the) State universities and colleges were within the domain of the State Government and till such time as it decided to adopt the same, the same would have no application to the teachers and staff of the different educational institutions in the State.
77. We are inclined to agree with such submission mainly because of the fact that in the amended provisions of nonteaching employees would be 62 years and, in no case, should the period of service of such no teaching employees be extended beyond 62 years. A difference had been made in regard to the teaching faculty whose services could be extended up to 65 years in the manner laid down in the University Statutes. There is no ambiguity that the final decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers within a particular State would be that of the State itself. The right of the Commission to frame regulations having the force of law is admitted. However, the State Governments are also entitled to legislate with matters relating to education under List III Entry 25. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon the jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation would obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was any legislation enacted by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, both would have to be treated on a par with each other. In the absence of any such legislation by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, the regulations framed by way of delegated legislation have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List Page 44 of 70 HC-NIC Page 44 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT III Entry 25.
78. We are then faced with the situation where a composite scheme has been framed by UGC, whereby the Commission agreed to bear 80% of the expenses incurred by the State if such scheme was to be accepted, subject to the condition that the remaining 20% of the expense would be met by the State and that on and from 142010, the State Government would take over the entire burden and would also have enhanced the age of superannuation of teachers and other staff from 62 to 65 years. There being no compulsion to accept and/or adopt the said Scheme, the State are free to decide as to whether the Scheme would be adopted by them or not. In our view, there can be no automatic application of the recommendations made by the Commission, without any conscious decision being taken by the State in this regard, on account of the financial implications and other consequences attached to such a decision. The case of those petitioners who have claimed that they should be given the benefit of the Scheme dehors the responsibility attached thereto, must, therefore, fail.
79. However, within this class of institutions there is a separate group where the State Governments themselves have taken a decision to adopt the Scheme. In such cases, the consequences envisaged in the Scheme itself would automatically follow."
52. Thus, from the above it could be said that when the UGC regulations imposes any financial obligation upon a State by way of recommendation the same may not be binding to the State Government like recommendations on academic matters and issues. At the same time when the Page 45 of 70 HC-NIC Page 45 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT State Government decides to accept the scheme as a whole for the full time teachers then the decision of the State Government not to give effect to the recommendation of the Commission to pay the part time teachers on the basis of pro rata basis i.e. half/proportionate amount of the basic of the scale and proportionate increment, dearness allowances and any other permissible benefits the same would render the action of the State Government vulnerable to the complaint that the same is unconstitutional.
53. At this stage I may also quote the decision relied upon by the State Government in the case of B. Bharat Kumar and others v. Osmania University and others, 2007 (11) SCC 58 more particularly paragraph No.18 which reads as under: "18. For the Similar reasons we do not see as to why the judgment in T.P. George is not applicable to the present case. A very serious argument was raised by the learned counsel that the judgment stood overruled by Yashpal case.
Page 46 of 70HC-NIC Page 46 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT We do not think so. Yashpal case was on entirely different issue. There the controversy was relating to a legislation creating number of universities. The question there was as to whether the State Government could create so many universities and whether the legislation creating number of universities. The question there was relating to a legislation creating number of universities. The question there was as to whether the State Government could create so many universities and whether the legislation creating such universities was a valid legislation, particularly in view of the fact that the subject of higher education was covered under Entry 66 of List I. Such is not the subject in the present case. Here is a case where there is no legislation. Even if we take the scheme to the higher pedestal of policy statement under Article 73 of the Constitution, the scheme itself suggests to be voluntary and not binding and the scheme itself gives a discretion to the State Government to accept it or not to accept it. If such is the case, we do not see the relevance of Yashpal in the present matter. Once this argument fails, the reference to the other cases which we have referred to earlier also becomes unnecessary. In our considered opinion all those cases relate to the legislative powers on the subject of education on the part of the State Government and the Central Government. In the present case we do not have any such legislation for being considered. Where the scheme itself gives the discretion to the State Government and where the State Government uses that discretion to accept a part of the scheme and not the whole thereof, it would be perfectly within the powers of the State Government not to accept the suggestion made by the scheme to increase the age of superannuation."
54. Mr. Anand Yagnik has placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Suresh v. Secretary, writpetition Page 47 of 70 HC-NIC Page 47 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT No.4468/2012 decided on 22nd August, 2012 wherein almost the same issue was considered. In that case also the petitioner was appointed, as a guest lecturer in the law college at Madurai. He was being paid Rs.100/per hour with the maximum of Rs.4000/ per month, which was increased to Rs.500/ per hour with the maximum of Rs.10,000/ per month. He preferred a representation for grant of honorarium of Rs.1000/ with a maximum amount of Rs.25,000/ per month. As the representation was not considered he preferred a writapplication with a prayer for issue of a writ, in the nature of mandamus. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court observed as under: "8. It is not disputed, that the petitioner fulfills the qualification. It is also not disputed in the counter, that the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission are binding on the University, Law College as also the Government. The only defense raised is, that the post against which the petitioner is working, is not the sanctioned post. The stand of the respondents in the counter reads as under: "6. It is further submitted that in letter No. F.101/2009(PS), dated February, 2010, it was informed that the University Grants Commission had decided that the Guest Lecturers who Page 48 of 70 HC-NIC Page 48 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT possess the minimum qualifications for the post of an Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25,000/per month. In the said letter, the revised guidelines for the appointment of Guest Lecturers have been issued by the University Grants Commission as furnished hereunder:
1)Guest Lecturers may be appointed only against sanctioned post.
2) The qualifications for the Guest Lecturers should be the same as those prescribed for the regular teachers of Universities/Colleges in UGC/s Regulations.
3) Selection procedure for appointing Guest Lecturers should be the same as for a regularly appointed teacher.
7. It is further submitted that in the Department of Legal Studies, there is no sanctioned post of Guest Lecturer and Guest Lecturers are not appointed against the sanctioned post. In the Department of Legal Studies, no appointment orders are issued to the Guest Lecturers who are utilized in the Government Law Colleges and their services are utilized on hourly basis and purely as an ad hoc arrangement till regular teachers are appointed through the Teachers Recruitment Board.
It is further submitted that the qualifications insisted for the Guest Lecturers of the Government Law Colleges are not the same as those prescribed for the regular teachers who are selected and appointed through the Teachers Recruitment Board and the selection procedure for the selecting the Guest Lecturers is not the same as that of the regularly appointed teachers. Hence, the petitioner herein is not justified in seeking enhancement of the remuneration paid to him as per letter No.F.101/2009(PS), dated February, 2010 of the University Grants Commission."
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that once it is not disputed, that the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission is binding on the University, there is no justification with the Page 49 of 70 HC-NIC Page 49 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT respondents, to refuse the grant of Honourarium at Rs.1000/(Rupees one Thousand Only) per lecture with a maximum of Rs.25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) per month. It is contended, that the defense of the respondent in denying the claim as per the guidelines, is totally arbitrary, thus, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader opposed the writ petition on the ground, that though the guidelines is binding on the University, and the Government, but it will apply only to the sanctioned post, and that the post held by the petitioner is not the sanctioned post, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the UGC guidelines to claim the Honourarim at Rs.1000/(Rupees One Thousand Only) per lecture with a maximum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) per months.
11. On consideration, I find, that the defense raised by the respondents cannot be accepted.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Guest Lecturer in the University. It is for the University, and the Government to see whether the post is sanctioned or not. The person, who performs a duty on a post, cannot be denied the Honorarium attached to the post by artificial classification. Once it is not disputed, that the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission are binding on the University, and the Government, then the recommendations have to be implemented for grant of Honorarium to guest lecturers, who are performing the duties irrespective of fact whether it is sanctioned post or not as persons performing similar duties cannot be discriminated merely for want of post being sanctioned.
13. It is for the respondents to decide whether the appointment is as guest lecturer against sanctioned post. It is not open to the respondents, to deny the Honorarium attached to the post, when once the petitioner is Page 50 of 70 HC-NIC Page 50 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT allowed to work as guest lecturer.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right, in contending, that the action of the respondents, in denying the benefits under the U.G.C. Recommendations is arbitrary, thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. A writ, in the nature of Mandamus, is issued directing the respondents to implement the UGC guideline No.F.101/2009(PS) dated February 2010 and to refix the Honourarium paid for the Guest Lectures delivered by the petitioner at Rs.1000/(Rupees One Thousand Only) per hour subject to the maximum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) per months."
55. Mr. Yagnik has also placed reliance on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dr. Puspendra and other v. BPS Mahila Vidyalaya and others (Writ petition NO.2372 of 2011) decided on 4th October, 2013.
56. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was confronted with almost an identical issue. In that case also the petitioners were appointed as the guest lecturer in different degrees subjects in a college. The petitioners prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to grant scales to the guest lecturer as prescribed the UGC vide the Page 51 of 70 HC-NIC Page 51 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT revised guidelines issued by the UGC on 5th February, 2010 whereby the UGC decided that guests/part time lecturers took possession the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/ per lecture to maximum of Rs.25,000/ per month. The college declined the request for revision of salary of the guests faculty on the premise that the same could be sanctioned only after the receipt of orders from the State Government.
"The short question which is required to be determined in the present case is whether the petitioners who were appointed as Guest Lecturers under respondent No.1 University, an autonomous statutory body Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2372 of 2011 [11] constituted under Section 26 of the UGC Act, is not bound to accept the command of the UGC to grant pay of Rs.1000/per lecture to the petitioners to a maximum of Rs.25,000/per month as per the guidelines for the Guest/Part Time Teachers vide annexure P5(Annexure R2/3). The UGC has been constituted under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 (Act No.3 of 1956). The Actwas enacted to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities. The Commission under the provisions of the UGC Act has been entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities. For the said purose, the Page 52 of 70 HC-NIC Page 52 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Commission has been vested with the power to recommend to any university the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advice the universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendations as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of it's functions. Section 26 of the UGC Act (Act No.3 of 1956) gives power to the Commission to make regulations consistent with the Act. It permits the Commission to define the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which the applicant is expected to give instructions. As per Section 2(f) University Grants Commission Act, Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I atteste to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Cnahdigarh CWP No.2372 of 2011 [12] "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincials Act or a State Act. The above said provision implies that a University constituted under a statute requires to be recognized by the UGC in accordance with the regulations, Section 3 of the UGC Act ENABLES THE Central Government, on the advice of the Commission to declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purpose of this Act, andon such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause 2 (f) of the UGC Act. As the standard of teaching, examination, research etc. are to be maintained, section 12 of the Act provides that, it shall be the concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co ordination of Universituy education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. The commission is also authrorized to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher Page 53 of 70 HC-NIC Page 53 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions. Under the Act, UGC is invested with powers specified Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.2372 of 2011[13] in various classes of Section 12. These include power to recommend to a University the measures necessary for the improvement of the University Educaion and to advice in respect of action to be taken for the performances of implementing such recommendations. The UGC is also invested with powers to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of such functions. A reference can be made to clauses
(d) and (j) of Section 12 of the Act which are as under:` "12(d) Recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendable;
12(j) Perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions."
The above said clauses are wide enough to empower UGC to frame the regulations. Section 26 (1) (g) of the Act confers specific and sufficient power under the UGC to frame regulations regulating the CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [14] maintenance of standards and coordination of work and facilities in the Universities. The UGC, in the exercise of the powers vested in it had been framing regulations from time to time. For instance, University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 was made in March 2000 which was subsequently amended vide Regulations of 2002. It is also not disputed that the UGC Regulations of 2010, which has been referred to hereinbefore, provided the appointment of Page 54 of 70 HC-NIC Page 54 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT teachers on contract basis when it is absolutely necessary when the student teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms but it was limited to the extent of 10% of the total number of faculty posts in the College/ University. So far as the qualification and selection procedure for appointment of Faculty member on contract basis is concerned, the qualifications and selection procedure has been held to be the same as applicable to the regular appointed lecturers. It is open to the college/ University to pay fixed emoluments to the teachers but to safeguard the interest of the teachers and the taught, it has been provided that the emoluments to contract teachers should not be less than monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor and that such appointment should not be made initially for more than one academic session and performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappoint him/ her on contract basis for another session. Since 1956 Act is traceable to Entry 66, List I, VII CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [15] Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Regulations framed by the UGC regarding the minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer is binding on the State Government and the concerned University. The well merited role and authority of UGC has been accepted and considered by the Apex Court in few judgments. Reference can be made to University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh, 1994 (Suppl.) 3 SLR 217, and Bharathidasan University and another Vs. All India Council of Technical Education and others, AIR 2001 SC 2861 observing that UGC has well merited role of primacy to play in shaping as well as stepping up a coordinated development and improvement in the standards of education and research in the sphere of education. The said judgments referred to the role and duty of the Commission for determination and maintenance of the standards of teaching. The authority and duty of UGC to maintain good standard of education have been recognized in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others, 2013 (6) JT 277, though in different context, in juxtaposition with the role of All India Council for Technical Education under the All India Page 55 of 70 HC-NIC Page 55 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the role of AICTE has been held to be advisory and recommendatory and the role has been held to subserve the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms subject to the authority of UGC for appropriate action.
So far as the letters annexure P5 (annexure R 2/3) issued by UGC is concerned, it was admittedly circulated by the UGC. Any CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [16] notification, regulation or Rules of UGC have got binding force for the purpose of appointment and qualifications to the post of Lecturers. As per the reply filed on behalf of UGC, the assessment of merit and suitability of a candidate for appointment to any post of teacher, is within the domain of the concerned Selection Committee. The consequences of failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of the Commission are enumerated in Section 14 of the UGC Act which reads as follows: "If any University grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in subsection (5) of section 12A in contravention of the provisions of that sub section or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by the Commission under section 12 or section 13, or contravenes the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26, the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University or such failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission."
Subsequently UGC framed the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [17] Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. Clause 3 of the said regulations provides the consequences of failure of Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Page 56 of 70 HC-NIC Page 56 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Commission as per provisions of Section 14 of the UGC Act which has been reproduced hereinabove. Letter No. F.101/2009(PS) dated February 6, 2010, annexure R2/3 provides that Guest/ Part Time Teachers possessing minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/ per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/ per month. The above said emoluments are accompanied by certain revised guidelines which have come into operation w.e.f. January 1, 2010. UGC claims that the said circular though is not part of UGC Regulations but the Universities are required and expected to give effect to the above said circular regarding the appointment of Guest/ Part Time Teachers in the Universities and Colleges. It has been reiterated by UGC that if University contravenes the condition as contained in the circular dated February 6, 2010, the Commission may take action against such University in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The circular dated February 6, 2010 is in consonance with the objectives of UGC Act and UGC Regulations 2010 and the same being consistent with the statute, standard provisions and the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would be deemed to be a law and will be considered to be a law if seen in context to Article 13 (3) (a) of the Constitution of India. It is not denied by respondent No.1 University that it CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [18] has been constituted and has got the recommendation of the University Grants Commission. The circular annexure P5 (annexure R2/3) has got a statutory force and is required to be implemented by respondent No.1 University in order to escape any action under Section 14 of the UGC Act.
I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the State that the petitioners having accepted lesser emoluments will be estopped to claim the higher emoluments but I do not find any force in the same as the recognition of respondent No.1 University binds it to follow the regulations made by UGC. In case of failure of the University to comply with Page 57 of 70 HC-NIC Page 57 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT any of the recommendations of the Commission, the Commission can withhold the grant proposed to be made out of the funds of the Commission. As the University has approved the appointment of the petitioners as Guest Faculty pursuant to the advertisement annexure R1/1, it is not permissible for the University to pay the emoluments which are not recommended by the UGC. The advertisement annexure R/1/1 dated June 17, 2010 issued in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper shows that the incumbents interested to be appointed as Guest Lecturers in different subjects having qualifications as per UGC norms were invited to give an impression that the UGC norms regarding qualifications, eligibility and emoluments were known to the employer and an employee.
Since the University is a statutory authority functioning under the supervision of the Commission constituted under a statute i.e. UGC Act and is governed by the Regulations and bound to follow the CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [19] recommendations and regulations to save itself from the penal action under Section 14 of the UGC Act, it will be presumed that appointment of the petitioners as Guest Faculty Lecturers is an act performed under the Statute and should be presumed to be governed by the provisions of law and is expected to be reasonable. There are certain presumptions which are inferences or propositions which derive their force or artificial effect from the law and must be drawn when an act is done by a statutory body bound by the strict rules and regulations, the act done will be considered a legal act in accordance with the Rules and regulations and would have the effect of estopping the statutory authority to deny its liability which is required to fulfill the legal obligation. There cannot be an estoppel against an act of Legislature. The appointment of faculty of Part Time Lecturers is permissible under the Rules of UGC subject to certain conditions. When a selection is made by an institution it will be presumed that all the necessary conditions and requirements stand fulfilled. The stand of the respondent University that as the petitioners had agreed to receive lesser emoluments for a work done they are estopped to challenge the same, is baseless.
Page 58 of 70HC-NIC Page 58 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT It is the statutory obligation of University to pay Rs.1000/ per lecture to Guest Lecturers. An agreement to work for meager money would be unconscionable under Section 23 of the Contract Act and will not prevent the lecturers to enforce their legal rights.
The regulations of the UGC are binding on respondent No.1 University. Appointment made on the basis of the advertisement annexure CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [20] R1/1 will be deemed to be a selection pursuant to advertisement on the basis of the qualifications laid down by UGC norms. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to be paid Rs.1000 per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/ per month. After availing the services of the petitioners, they cannot be deprived of the emoluments which they are legally entitled to. Without expression of any opinion on the eligibility, capability and merits of the petitioners it is sufficient to observe that having performed the duties of Guest/ Part Time teachers in a College run under University under the recommendations of the UGC, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the financial benefits which is sine qua non for maintaining standards of teaching of the teachers and the taughts.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The order annexure P7 prescribing Rs.300/ per hour subject to maximum of Rs.15000/ qua the petitioners is declared to be illegal, unreasonable and discriminatory. A direction is issued to the respondents to grant the petitioners remuneration at the rate of Rs.1000/ per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.25000/ per month w.e.f. the date of their appointment without prejudice to other legal rights of the petitioners or the respondents. The petitioners will be paid the arrears within a period of three months by respondent No.1 University with liberty to claim the additional burden from any of the State authorities liable to provide financial assistance/ grant."
57. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the two High courts referred to above.
Page 59 of 70HC-NIC Page 59 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
58. The matter could be looked at from a different angle. I have already discussed about the disparity in the salary between the two classes of the employees. An appropriate salary to a part time lecturer will ensure that such part time lecturer would work sincerely and dedicatedly. If a part time lecturer works with heart burning having regard to the enormous disparity in the pay scale it will have a direct effect on his performance i.e. quality of the teaching. Therefore, what has been recommended by the UGC for the part time lecturers although may not be binding to the Government but still is very much essential for maintaining the standards of teaching of the teachers and the taughts.
59. The common ground urged as regards the financial implications also does not merit consideration. It was sought to be argued before me on behalf of the State Government that this Court should consider the matter from different Page 60 of 70 HC-NIC Page 60 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT angles applying the practical experience and factual contexts before arriving at any decision.
To put in other words, the State Government wants the Court to take a pragmatic approach in this type of matters. I am unable to record my concurrence there too. Pragmatic does not necessarily be deprivation of the legitimate claims of the weaker sections of the society. The submissions, if I may say with respect, is totally misplaced and does not warrant any further discussion thereon.
60. I may also quote with profit the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2493.
"The contention with regard to the financial burden likely to be imposed by the directions in question is equally misconceived. Firstly, the Courts do from time to time hand down decisions which have financial implications and the Government is obliged to loosen its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions. Secondly, when the duties are obligatory, no grievance can be heard that they cast financial burden. Thirdly, compared to the other plan and nonplan expenditure, we find that the financial burden caused on account of the said directions Page 61 of 70 HC-NIC Page 61 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT is negligible. We should have thought that such plea was not raised to resist the discharge of the mandatory duties. The contention that the resources of all the States are not uniform has also to be rejected for the same reasons. The directions prescribe, the minimum necessary service conditions and facilities for the proper administration of justice. We believe that the quality of justice administered and the calibre of the persons appointed to administer it are not of different grades in different States. Such contentions are illsuited to the issues involved in the present case."
61. The last question I need to consider is as regards the final relief.
62. The Regulations specifically provides that in case of Permanent Part Time Teachers they would be entitled to half/proportionate amount of the basis of the scale and proportionate increments, dearness allowance and any other permissible benefits. In the same regulation as an annexure there is a specific letter addressed by the University Grants Commission which reads as under: "No.F29/97(PS) Date: 17 April,)1999 The Registrar Sub: Revision of honorarium to be paid to Guest/Part Time Teacher in the Universities and Collegeregarding.
Page 62 of 70HC-NIC Page 62 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Sir/Madam, In continuation to the UGC Circular No. F.15 7/88 (CPP) dated 14.03.1998 on the above subject. I am to inform you that the Commission decided that the honorarium may be paid @ Rs.150/ per lecture to the Guest/Teacher in the Universities and Colleges instead of payment of honorarium per month. However, it is clarified that this will not apply to parttime teachers who are appointed on terms & conditions as provided for in the para 12.0.0 of the Notification issued by University Grants Commission on 24th December, 1998."
63. It appears that in the then existing system there were three kinds of appointment being made: (1) Permanent Full Time appointment (2) Permanent Part Time Appointment (3) Guest Lecturers/Teachers
64. It is evident that the there is a difference between the permanent Part Time Teachers governed under the Clause 12 and are entitled to payment of salary prorata to that of Full Time Teacher whereas in the case of the later they are to be paid honorarium of Rs.150/lecture.
Page 63 of 70HC-NIC Page 63 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
65. It appears that thereafter the UGC issued another circular dated 21/03/2000 in continuation of the earlier circular and conveyed that that it was not in favour of a separate cadre of the parttime teachers and that the Commission had decided that no new parttime teachers be appointed and wherever required a Guest Faculty could be appointed on per lecture basis. It was further informed that the Commission had decided to enhance the amount of honorarim from Rs.150/ per lecture for the Guest Teachers. By another communication this amount was further enhanced to Rs.250 per lecture with a ceiling of Rs.3000 per month. By a subsequent communication dated 05/08/2001 it was provided that in respect of the Guest Lecturers the ceiling should be Rs.5000/month.
66. It appears that the VI pay review committee considered the revision of the existing honorarium of the Guest Teachers and recommended the revision of the scales. In terms thereof the Page 64 of 70 HC-NIC Page 64 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT UGC issued revised guidelines for the scheme of appointment of Guest/Part Time teachers by which it directed that they be paid Rs.1000/lecture to a maximum of Rs.25,000 per month. Subsequently the UGC framed the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 with effect from 18.09.2010. In the affidavit filed by it the UGC has referred to Clause 13.0 thereof which provides for the appointment on contract basis and prescribes that the fixed salary of contract teachers should not be less that the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.
67. The State Government has stated in its affidavit dated 7th February 2013 filed by the Joint Director that the petitioners were selected and appointed through the selection process for the post of Part Time Lecturer as per the scheme Page 65 of 70 HC-NIC Page 65 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT laid down by the University Grants Commission. It is further stated that pursuant to the decision of the UGC not to appoint any new Part Time Lecturers, the system of giving appointment as part time lecturer is done away with. It is the case of the Petitioners as well as the State Government that after 1998 no appointments have been made as the Part Time Lecturers and all petitioners were appointed in or before 1998. The State Government has not been able to dispute the specific contention regarding the similar kind of work being undertaken by the part time lecturers.
It has been submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get their part time posts converted to full time posts. Reliance has been placed on the government resolutions whereunder the benefit of weightage was given to the part time lecturers in the process of recruitment of Adhyapak Sahayak.
68. The petitioners have not prayed for their posts to be converted from part time to full Page 66 of 70 HC-NIC Page 66 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT time. Their grievance is against the payscale being offered to them which is not in commensurate with the payscale being offered to the Full Time Lecturers. They have prayed that their payscale be proportionate to that of the full time teachers taking into consideration the number of lecturers undertaken by them in accordance with the regulations of the UGC.
69. Upon a comprehensive reading of the regulations framed by the UGC from time to time, this court finds that upto 21/03/2000 the UGC had recognized the cadre of Permanent Part Time Teachers and provided that they would be entitled to half/proportionate amount on the basis of the scale and proportionate increments, dearness allowance and any other permissible benefits.
Once the state government admits that the appointment to the post of the Part Time Lecturers has been made in accordance with the scheme framed by the UGC from time to time, those persons who have been appointed as the Part Time Page 67 of 70 HC-NIC Page 67 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Lecturers prior to 21/03/2000 would therefore be entitled to the payscale as provide in clause 12.00 of the notification dated 24/12/1998. The contention on behalf of the Respondent that subsequently the UGC has provided for a honorarium with a ceiling limit from time to time and that in terms thereof the petitioners may claim the benefit of proportionate scale cannot be accepted. The honorarium provided by the UGC was for a separate cadre of appointments namely Guest Lecturer. The UGC letter unequivocally states that revision in honorarium will not apply to the class of permanent part time teachers who would continue to be governed by clause 12.
Consequently the question of applying future revisions in honorarium to the class of permanent part time teacher would not arise. It may also be noticed that the existing pay paid to the permanent part time lecturers in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 17/01/2012 is not in consonance with the minimum honorarium prescribed by the UGC. The Government Resolution Page 68 of 70 HC-NIC Page 68 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT dated 17/01/2012 is therefore not in consonance with the Regulations framed by the UGC from time to time. The Government having accepted the Regulations framed by the UGC and having implemented the recommendations in respect of Full time Lecturers should not deny the similar entitlement as provided in the UGC regulations to the Part Time Lecturers.
70. In view of the above the present writ petition is allowed. The Government Resolutions dated 17/01/2012 and 30/05/2015 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. The Government is directed to provide the benefits of proportionate amount of salary on the basis of the scale and proportionate increments, dearness allowance and other permissible benefits to those persons who were appointed as the Permanent Part Time Teachers prior to 21/03/1999. Those persons who were appointed as the Guest Lecturers/Part Time Teachers under the subsequent circulars of the UGC would be entitled to the benefit of the Page 69 of 70 HC-NIC Page 69 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015 C/CA/7212/2015 CAV JUDGMENT honorarium as provided by the UGC under the circular dated 21/03/1999 as revised from time to time.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Manoj Page 70 of 70 HC-NIC Page 70 of 70 Created On Wed Sep 09 02:29:59 IST 2015