Allahabad High Court
Dr. Pramod Prasad vs Madan Mohan Malviya University Of ... on 28 January, 2015
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta, Narayan Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 293 of 2015 Petitioner :- Dr. Pramod Prasad Respondent :- Madan Mohan Malviya University Of Technology And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh,H.N. Singh Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
The petitioner, who was appointed as a Professor, Training and Placement1 in the Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College, Gorakhpur2 by order dated 13 February 1999 has challenged the order dated 1/2 January 2015 by which he has been informed that he would not be entitled to the benefit of the Academic Session on attaining the age of superannuation as he is not performing regular teaching work.
The appointment order of the petitioner mentions that it was against a regular permanent post and it was specifically provided that the petitioner shall devote his whole time to his duties and shall perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the Principal/Head of Department. Such duties, it was provided, could include the organization of instruction, teaching formal or informal, examination of the students, maintenance of their discipline, promotion of their welfare and co-curricular and residential activities. The petitioner was also required to perform such other duties of the College as could be entrusted to him by the Principal.
Subsequently, the administration of the Engineering College was transferred to the Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College Society, which was a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The State Government then enacted the Uttar Pradesh Madan Mohan Malviya University of Technology Act, 2013 3 and Section 4(4) of the Act provides that every person employed by the Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College, Gorakhpur immediately before the commencement of the Act shall hold his office or service in the University by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as he would have held if the Act had not been passed and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or he has opted for the University's terms and conditions of employment.
The Bye-laws of the Society classified the members of the staff of the College/Institution. In Clause 2, it was provided that the academic staff would consists of amongst others of Professors including Professor, Training and Placement. The Bye-laws also provide for Teaching Supporting, Technical, Administrative (Non-Teaching).
It is submitted by Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh that the petitioner had been duly appointed as a Professor in the College on 13 February 1999 on a permanent post. He was required to perform duties provided in the appointment order which included organization of instruction, teaching formal or informal, examination of the students, maintenance of their discipline, promotion of their welfare and co-curricular and residential activities. Learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that even under the Bye-laws of the Society, Academic posts have been mentioned which include Professors. It is specifically provided that Professor would include Professor, Training and Placement. It is, therefore, his submission that the College committed an illegality in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Academic Session because he is not teaching.
Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and has contended that the Government Orders dated 27 February 1996 and 23 February 2000 provide for giving the benefit of Academic Session only to such persons who are regularly performing teaching work and as the petitioner is not regularly performing the teaching work, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Academic Session. He has also placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and has stated that if the petitioner has been teaching for one or two hours, as and when necessity arose, it cannot be said that the petitioner is teaching on a regular basis so as to enable him to claim the benefit of the Academic Session.
We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
As noticed above, the petitioner had been appointed as a Professor in the Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College, Gorakhpur on 13 February 1999. His appointment was on a permanent post in the Scale applicable to the post of Professors i.e. 4500-7300/-. The duties that had been assigned to him also required him to perform the teaching (formal or informal), to hold the examinations and ensure the maintenance of discipline amongst the students and promote their welfare. What is important to notice is that the Bye-laws of the Society governing the terms and conditions of the employment classify the members of the staff of the College/Institute and as against Academic posts, Professors including Professors, Training and Placement is mentioned. Other administrative/non-teaching technical and teaching supporting posts have also been specified.
We consider it appropriate to reproduce the classification of the members of the staff of the College as provided in the bye-laws of the Society and the same are as follows:-
"2. Classification of Members of the staff of the College/Institute: Except in case of employees paid from contingencies the members of the staff of the Institute/College shall be classified as follows:
(a) Academic and Administrative:-
Principal/Director
(b) Academic:-
(i) Professor including Professor, Training & Placement
(ii) Associate Professor, if any
(iii) Reader/Assistant Professor
(iv) Lecturer
(v) Workshop Superintendent
(vi) Asstt. Workshop Superintendent
(vii) Physical Training Instructor, if any
(viii) Teaching/Research Assistant
(ix) Such other academic staff as may be decided by the Board
(c) Teaching Suppporting:-
(i)Computer System Manager
(ii) Computer Programmer
(iii) Technical Assistant
(iv) Demonstrators
(v) Workshop Instructors/Instructors
(vi) Computer Operator
(vii) Computer Data Operators
(d) Technical
(i) Foreman
(ii) Supervisor (Workshop)
(iii) Mechanics
(iv) Horticultural Assistant, if any
(v) Draftsman, and
(vi) Such other technical staff as may be decided by the Board.
(e) Administrative (Non-Teaching)
(i) Registrar
(ii) Deputy Registrar/Administrative Officer
(iii) Assistant Registrar
(iv) Accounts Officer
(v) Audit Officer, if any
(vi) Stores or Purchase Officer
(vii) Estate Officer, if any
(viii) Medical Officer, if any
(ix) Assistant Engineer
(x) Librarian
(xi) Deputy Librarian, if any
(xii) Assistant Librarian, if any
(xiii) Such other administrative staff as may be decided by the Board."
Clause 4 deals with the Selection Committee for filling up the various posts including the posts of Professors, Associate Professors, Readers and Lecturers. It would thus be seen that the Professors including Professors Training and Placement is clubbed along with the other teaching posts of Associate Professors, Reader, Lecturers, Workshop Superintendent, Assistant Workshop Superintendent, Physical Training Instructor and Teaching/Research Assistant.
The petitioner, may have been appointed as a Professor, Training & Placement but nonetheless the duties that were assigned to him clearly require him to train the students for placement. This is a regular teaching work and this fact is also borne out from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of the University held on 20 December 2014 wherein, after noticing that the petitioner would retire on 31 January 2015 after attaining the age of superannuation, the Board observed that steps for the benefit of the students should immediately be taken to appoint another Professor. In such circumstances, it will not be appropriate to draw any distinction between the other Professors of the University and a Professor, Training and Placement and the benefit of Academic Session, which is provided to the other Professors should also be provided to the petitioner.
What is also important to notice is that some of the Universities have been providing the benefit of Academic Session to Professors, Training and Placement as is apparent from a letter dated 29 February 2008 sent by the Under Secretary in the State Government to the Director of the Bundelkhand Engineering Institute wherein benefit of Academic Session has been provided to Professor, Training and Placement.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the resolution dated 20 December 2014 and the order dated 01/02 January 2015 passed by the Registrar of the University rejecting the claim of the petitioner for providing the benefit of Academic Session deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The petitioner shall now be provided the benefit of Academic Session as is being provided to other Professors of the University.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 28.1.2015 NSC (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Shri Narayan Shukla, J.)