Madras High Court
Dr. R. Palani Durai, Assistant ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Secretary ... on 17 March, 2003
ORDER K. Govindarajan, J.
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Government Orders passed in G.O.Ms. No. 72 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 31.3.1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 257 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 1.11.1994. The petitioners and the respective respondents are working as Assistant Professors as they have been recruited directly by the 2nd respondent-university. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7720/1997 was appointed in and by the proceedings dated 12.1.1993 and he joined duty as Assistant Professor on 5.2.1993. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6792 and 6793 of 1997 were also appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Professors and pursuant to the said appointment, they have joined the 2nd respondent-university and have been working as Assistant Professors. In these Writ Petitions, the respective respondents were also recruited directly after conducting interview and appointment orders were issued to them on the basis of the said direct recruitment either along with the petitioners or subsequent to the petitioners as the case may be. This fact is not disputed before me. By issuing the impugned Government Orders dated 1.11.1994 and 31.3.1997, the Government have given different status and higher pay to the respondents who are also working as Assistant Professors and so the petitioners have challenged the said impugned Government Orders.
2. Heard Mr. Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No. 7720/1997, Mr. Durai Nelliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6792 and 6793 of 1997, Mr. P.S. Jayakumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the 1st respondent in all the writ petitions, Mr. Thirumavalavan, appearing for 2nd respondent in these writ petitions, Mrs. K. Suguna, learned counsel appearing for some other respondents and Mr. Velusami, learned counsel appearing for some other respondents.
3. It is not disputed before me that the petitioners and the respondents who are working as Assistant Professors were appointed by direct recruitment after conducting interview. According to Statute No. 45 of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, the University has to fill up the vacancies through direct recruitment or by transfer from one post to another or by promotion as prescribed in the Regulations. Even with reference to the employees who are transferred from the State Government and other Universities to work in the 2nd respondent-university, they shall be governed by the service conditions as applicable to the employees of the 2nd respondent-university. According to Statute No. 46, the University is empowered to take the State, Central, Semi and Quasi-Government employees on deputation in the University service.
4. But, in the present case, the University appointed the petitioners and the respective respondents by calling for application and by way of direct recruitment. So, in the appointment orders, it is specifically stated that candidates who were appointed so are placed on probation with effect from the date of joining in the service for a period of two years within a continuous period of three years. They have to produce physical fitness certificate and they have also executed agreements in the form prescribed. It is also stated that such appointees will be governed by the Act, Statutes and Regulations of the 2nd respondent-university. The above said facts are mentioned here only to show that the 2nd respondent-university adopted one of the methods of recruitments, namely, the direct recruitment to appoint the petitioners and the respective respondents in these writ petitions.
5. While so, the Government passed the impugned orders and directed the 2nd respondent-university to take into consideration the services rendered by the respective respondents in the Animal Husbandry Department for the purpose of Career Advancement and thereby the respondents got higher status. The said benefits given under the impugned Government Orders have to be construed only as promotion, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in T.N. Agricultural University Teachers Association (TAUTA) v. State of Tamil Nadu Agriculture Department, 2001 Writ L.R. 528. It is also not disputed before me by the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents that in view of the impugned Government Orders passed conferring benefits under Career Advancement Scheme, the respondents are getting some status.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submitted that the petitioners are not aggrieved by the impugned Government Orders and so they have no locus-standi to question the same. I am not able to agree with the same. Since the respective respondents are either appointed along with the petitioners or subsequent to the petitioners as the case may be by the impugned Government Orders, the status of the respondent is pulled up for future consideration, and definitely the petitioners will be put to hardship and they will not be considered on par with the respondents for any other promotion etc. So, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents regarding the locus-standi of the petitioners to challenge the impugned Government Orders cannot be accepted.
7. The respective respondents are direct recruitees either along with the petitioners or subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners and so the question of considering their earlier service under the State Government will not arise. According to Sec.43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act (Act 43/1989), the Government in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall direct, such of the employees who were serving in the institutions, to serve in the university with effect on and from the date specified in the order. Only such an employee can be construed as employee of the University appointed by transfer. But, in the present case, admittedly, the respondents were appointed not by transfer but by direct recruitment. But, even in the impugned Government Orders, the Government proceeded as if the respondents are the employees of the University appointed by transfer. This fact is pointed out only to show that the impugned Government Orders are passed without application of mind.
8. Even as per the Statutes of the 2nd respondent-University for conferring Career Advancement on the Assistant Professors, certain conditions have to be complied with. One of the conditions mentioned is that they have to complete 8 years of service as Assistant Professors without Ph.D Degree or complete 5 years of service with Ph.D Degree. Admittedly, the respondents have not completed the said period of service so as to enable the Government to confer Career Advancement on the respondents. Even according to the new scheme as framed by the University Grants Commission, it is stated as follows:-
"CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEME The Government accept the Career Advancement Scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission and accepted by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research as detailed below:
(i) The minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the cadre of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with Ph.D. Degree, five years for those with M. Phil. Degree, and six years for others as an Assistant Professor (Selection Grade)/Associate Professor, the minimum length of service as Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) shall be uniformly five years.
(ii) For movement into cadres of Associate Professor and above, the minimum of eligibility criterion would be Ph.D. Degree. Those Teachers without Ph.D. Degree can go up to the level of Assistant Professor (Selection Grade).
(iii) An Associate Professor with a minimum of eight years of service will be eligible for consideration for appointment as a Professor.
(iv) If the number of years required in a feeder cadre is less than those stipulated in this Government Order, thus entailing hardship to those who have completed more than the total number of years in their service in teaching and research for eligibility in the cadre, may be placed in the next higher cadre after adjusting the total number of years of service in teaching/research. The actual date of joining in the University service shall be taken into account for this purpose.
(v) For every upward movement, a selection process would be followed as stipulated in the Regulations of ASRR of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University.
Explanation:
While implementing the above Career Advancement Scheme, the restriction on the number of Teachers shall be applied as in the case of College and University Teachers in the State. For the purpose of sanctioned strength of Teaching posts in TANUVAS, the posts under Career Advancement Scheme shall be classified under their original Designations, as being followed hitherto in other Colleges and Universities. Before advancing Teachers under Career Advancement Scheme, in all occasions, the clearance of the Finance Committee of the University shall be obtained."
Even according to the said scheme to get Career Advancement Scheme, they should complete 4 years of service with Ph.D. Degree, 5 years of service with M. Phil. Degree and 6 years of service as Assistant Professor and such service should be in teaching and research. It is also specifically stated that the date of joining in the University service shall be taken into consideration for the said purpose. Though the said revised scheme came into force subsequently, the intention of the said Scheme is only to give benefits to the teaching staff who are working as such for number of years of service without any further movement to the higher post.
So the respondents cannot be conferred with such benefits under Career Advancement as they are not entitled to rely on their past services in the Government Department.
9. Mr. Velusami, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents relied on number of judgments in support of his submission that the Government is correct in taking into consideration their past services in Government Departments before joining the services of the University, I am not referring those judgments as the said judgments can be applied only to cases where the appointment by transfer as contemplated under Sec.43(2) of the said Act and they need not be referred to in the present case.
10. Moreover, the Government have no power to direct the University to confer Career Advancement on the respective respondents on the basis of the past services under them. Since the Rules and Regulations of the 2nd respondent-University already occupied the said field under which alone such Career Advancement could be conferred. Any order issued by the Government contrary to the said Rules and Regulations of the University cannot be sustained. The relevant Rules and Regulations have already been referred to earlier. Even on that basis the impugned Government Orders cannot be sustained.
11. In view of the above discussions, the impugned Government Orders dated 1.11.1994 and 31.3.1997 are set aside insofar as they are against the respective respondents are concerned and these writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.