Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commissioner Of Collegiate Education & ... vs R. Srinivas And Anr Etc. Etc. on 19 April, 2016
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, S.A. Bobde
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4232-4236 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.29369-29373/2013)
COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION & ANR. ETC. APELLANT(S)
VERSUS
R. SRINIVAS AND ANR ETC. ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Earlier by our order dated 16.12.2014 we noted the stand of Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that the State Government has taken the initiative to implement our suggestion made in our order dated 28.10.2014, a Scheme has been formulated on 19.1.2015. Under the said Scheme, the State has now come forward with the following proposals:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2016.04.23
“After careful examination of 11:15:32 IST Reason: the matter in order to regulate the appointment of lecturers in Aided Colleges and encourage the 2 institutions which have NAAC accredition, the Government have agreed the above proposal subject to the following modifications:
a) Filling of vacancies in those subjects where there is a need, based on the norms relating to student teacher ratio. Subject to the above, the vacancies, in the Colleges which have 'A' grading assigned by the NAAC should be filled and 50% of the vacancies in the Colleges with 'B' grade should be filled, provided there is sufficient work load.
b) The Government favours direct recruitment to the above vacancies, in which the teachers working in un-aided posts should also be given an opportunity to compete along with others, provided they fulfill all the eligibility criteria except the upper age limit, which should be relaxed to (45) years as proposed at Para-1(5) above.
c) The proposal in Para-1(4) above is considered and decided to give weightage of (10) marks to the un-aided Lecturers who worked minimum (10) years and an increase of marks per each year subject to a maximum of (15) years, if such a 3 weightage is given based on an objective criteria of performance.
d) Rule of Reservation should be followed.
4. Therefore, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad is requested to take further necessary action in the matter and appraise the Supreme Court of India, accordingly.” To the said Scheme, objections were filed on behalf of the contesting private respondents on 2.2.2015. Along with the objections, the profiles of the private respondents have also been furnished under Annexure A3, which discloses that out of eight respondents, Respondents-Smt. Neela Krishna Veni, Smt. M. Madhavi and Dr. K. Hanuma Reddy have crossed the age limit of 45 years and thereby they will not be able to fall within the condition set out in paragraph 3(b) of the Scheme. As far as, rest of the candidates are concerned, we find that except Respondents-Dr. P. Venugopal and Dr. K. Hanuma Reddy the other respondents do not fulfill the educational qualification, namely, having passed National Eligibility Test 4 (NET) though all of them are possessing M. Phil qualification to their credit. That apart, it is not in dispute that all the eight candidates are presently working in the unaided posts in the institution having 'A' Grade assigned by NAAC and thereby the said requirement set out in the Scheme of the Government is also fulfilled. Having considered the above particulars pertaining to the private respondents, we also noticed that each one of them have put in service ranging from 14 years (minimum) to 23 years (maximum).
In the said circumstances, we are of the view that as a one time measure directions can be issued to regularize the services of respondents – Mr. R. Srinivas, Mr. P.V. Ramu, Dr. P. Venugopal, Mr. Y. Sreekanth and Smt. Manjusri in the aided posts by granting age relaxation under the Scheme and without applying the Rule of Reservation as well as without undergoing the process of direct recruitment as proposed in the Scheme.
We are convinced that such a course would meet the ends of justice taking into account 5 the long service put in by the said respondents in the unaided posts, who are otherwise qualified. We, however, make it clear that such a regularization will take effect from the date of the vacancy which arose in any aided posts of the institution. It is needless to state that on such regularization being granted, the said respondents will be entitled to draw their salary which is applicable to aided post Lecturer from the date of regularization without any arrears of monetary benefit. Insofar as, respondents – Smt. Neela Krishna Veni, Smt. M. Madhavi and Dr. K. Hanuma Reddy are concerned, since they are now presently aged 55, 49 and 54 years respectively, we do not find it proper to direct the State Government to consider any further relaxation of their age.
However, having regard to the long years of service put in by them in the unaided posts, namely, 23 years, 14 years and 18 years respectively, it will be travesty of justice if they were to be terminated from service abruptly at this point of time.
6We are, therefore, of the view that the interest of justice can be sub-served by directing the appellants to allow them to continue in service not in an aided post but by paying the salary applicable to an aided post of Lecturer in the respective department and allow them to function as such till they reach their age of superannuation making them eligible for whatever terminal benefits, namely, accumulation of provident fund and gratuity, to be calculated at the rate at which they would be drawing the salary on the date of their retirement. Insofar as the other respondents – Mr. R. Srinivas, Mr. P.V. Ramu, Dr. P. Venugopal, Mr. Y. Sreekanth and Smt. Manjusri are concerned it is needless to state that their regularization in the aided posts will be from the date the vacancy arose in such aided posts but without any monetary benefit from the date of such vacancy and rule out their entitlement of salary on a notional basis, though their actual regularization will be from the date of the order of regularization being issued. They shall also, however, be 7 entitled for their terminal benefits, to be calculated by taking into account their entire service at the time of their retirement for the purpose of calculation of gratuity, apart from whatever provident fund accumulation to which they are entitled. We also direct the appellant to issue such orders of regularization within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Though in our orders dated 13.10.2014 and 16.12.2014 we made a reference to the other similarly placed Lecturers for the purpose of formulating the Scheme, we are not giving any specific directions in this order. However, we leave it open for the State Government either to apply the Scheme which they have formulated in the Memo No.10029/CE/A2/2014-4 dated 19.01.2015 to such similarly placed Lecturers.
At the risk of repetition, we make it clear that the present direction which we have issued in this order will be restricted to the eight respondents herein who diligently presented their claims and cannot be quoted as a precedent in respect of any other persons. 8
With the above directions and modifications in the proposed Scheme covered by Memo dated 19.1.2015, these appeals stand disposed of and the impugned order of the High Court shall stand modified to the said extent.
................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [S.A. BOBDE] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 19, 2016.
9
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).29369-29373/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/07/2013 in WA No. 1470/2012, WA No. 1350/2013, WA No. 1351/2013, WA No. 1345/2013 & WA No. 1346/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of A.P. at Hyderabad) COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION & ANR. ETC. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS R. SRINIVAS AND ANR ETC. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) (With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal) Date : 19/04/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar,Adv.
Ms. Prerna Singh,Adv.
For M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates For Respondent(s) Mr. B.G. Naidu,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Adinarayan Rao,Sr.Adv. Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gauri Karuna Mohanti,Adv. Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Apoorva Bhumesh,Adv. Mr. Tanvir Nayak,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (INDU POKHRIYAL)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)