Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Surendra Kumar Guptas vs Govt. Of Nctd on 19 May, 2025
1
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 4470/2017
This the 19th day of May, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Shri Anand Swaroop Gupta
R/o MB-8, Second Floor,
Master Block, Gali No. 1,
Shakarpur, Delhi 110092
Aged around 50 years
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary.
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building.
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-2.
2. Principal Secretary/ Secretary (Technical Education)
Directorate of Training & Technical Education, GNCT of
Delhi Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitam Pura, Delhi-88.
3. Selection Committee
Through its Chairman
Principal, GB Pant Govt. Engineering College Okhla
Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi-110020.
4. All India Council for Technical Education Through its
Secretary Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr. Monika Bhargawa, Mr.
S K Tripathi for Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
2
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the instant OA filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside orders dated 15/04/2013, order dated 21/05/2013 and the minutes of the selection committee (held on 04/04/2012) (qua the Applicant) to the limited extent being prejudicial to the Applicant (not counting his past service for the purposes of Career Advancement Scheme) without affecting 24 lecturers whose previous service has been counted for the purposes of CAS. And
(b) Direct the respondents to count the previous continuous service of Applicant (w. e. f. 16/02/2000 to 01/07/2002) rendered by him as Lecturer (Electronics & Communication Engineering) in Moradabad Institute of Technology for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme as stipulated in AICTE notification dated 20/09/1989, 30/12/1999 r/w clarification dated 10/09/1993 r/w.
Order dated 17/12/1998, and
(c) Direct the respondents to issue/ pass necessary consequential order qua the Applicant for preponing his Senior Scale, Selection Grade (PB-3 with AGP of Rs. 8000/-), PB-4 with AGP of Rs. 9000/- etc. AICTE notification dated 20/09/1989, notification 30/12/1999 r/w clarification dated 10/09/1993 r/w. clarification dated 10/09/2003. r/w order dated 17/12/1998 r/w office order dated 29/7/2010 r/w order dated 8/10/2010.And
(d) Direct the respondents to accord all the consequential benefits viz. arrears of salary, compound interest @ 18% p.a. on arrears of salary, promotions, seniority etc. to the Applicant. And
(e) Award cost in favor of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/or
(f) Pass any further order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is challenging the minutes of the meeting dated 04.04.2012.
2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant states that the case of the applicant was not considered on two grounds; first the applicant does not fulfill the sub-clause (b) of Clause 9.2 of AICTE notification and secondly, the original verification letter from previous employer was not received and, therefore, the case of the applicant was not considered by the screening/ selection committee for counting of his past service which would have ultimately resulted in proponment of Senior Scale Selection Grade I & II.
2.2 The applicant was allocated Senior Scale Grade I on 03.07.2007 and Selection Grade II on 03.07.2015. 2.3 The applicant seeks to count his previous service rendered as Lecturer at Moradabad Institute of Technology for the period from 16.02.2000 to 01.07.2002.
2.4 He draws attention to Clause 9.2 (b) & (e) of the AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999 which read as under:
"b) The qualifications for the posts were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by AICTE for the post of Lecturer;
e) The concerned Lecturer has possessed all the minimum qualifications prescribed by ACITE for appointment as Lecturers."4
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 2.5 In support of the case of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the prescribed minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the post of Lecturer which is first class Bachelor's degree in the appropriate branch of engineering/technology or first class master's degree in the appropriate branch of engineering/technology.
2.6 In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel has drawn attention to page 73 of the OA, wherein it is certified that the applicant possesses the degree of Master of Engineering in Digital System from the University of Allahabad even prior to the joining of the applicant.
2.7 Learned counsel for the applicant would highlight the case of the applicant is rejected on the ground that the AICTE Guidelines 1989 are being applied to the present case though this has not been spelt out in the minutes of the meeting, however, in reply to the RTI dated 12.01.2015, the applicant was informed that for the purposes of counting of past/previous service the relevant AICTE guidelines would be dated 20.09.1989 read with notification dated 10.09.1993, read with letter dated 17.12.1998 read with AICTE Notification dated 30.12.1999. He states that it appears that AICTE Guidelines 1989 were followed requiring the candidate to qualify GATE through the prescribed qualification did not mention the same. 5
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 He states that even if we go by this submission of the respondents, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors Vs. Dr. Amira Nisar in W.P.(C) No. 6026/2021 in its order dated 07.01.2022 has held as under in the relevant paragraphs quoted below:
"11.5. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, in our opinion, is flawed for the reason that it ignores the contents of paragraph 4 of the 1989 notification. For the sake of easy referral, the relevant portion of the said paragraph is extracted hereafter:
"....4.lt is proposed that recruitment at the level of lecturers will be from those who qualify through a qualifying examination, details of which shall be developed by the AICTE and intimated to the various State and institutions. Until this operational mechanism is developed, the existing procedures of reattachment will continue in relaxation of this recruitment....."
11.6. Clearly, the prescription outlined in the earlier part of the 1989 notification for appointment to the post of Lecturer requiring the candidate to qualify, an All-India Examination such as GATE, was relaxed, and therefore, there can be no quarrel with the argument that the qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer (EE), as provided in the 1999 advertisement issued by the BSF Polytechnic, was not lower than that. which was prescribed by AICTE in the 1989 notification.
16.2 As notice above, via the 1999 notification, AICTE had dropped altogether the requirement of qualifying an All-India Examination (such as GATE or its equivalent); a requirement, which before the issuance of the said notification, had been relaxed under the provision contained in paragraph 4 of the 1989 notification."
2.8 Learned counsel for the applicant would further rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Cherukuri Mani Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of AP [(2015) 13 SCC 722]. Para 14 of the same reads as under:
6
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 "14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure When the provisions of Section 3 of the Act clearly mandated the authorities to pass an order of detention at one time for a period not exceeding three months only, the government order in the present case. directing detention of the husband of the appellant for a period of twelve months at a stretch is clear violation of the prescribed manner and contrary to the provisions of law. The Government cannot direct or extend the period of detention up to the maximum period of twelve months in one stroke, ignoring the caustious legislative intention that even the order of extension of detention must not exceed three months at any one time. One should not ignore the underlying principles while passing orders of detention or extending the detention period from time to time."
2.9 He would further rely upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 2534/2015 decided on 11.01.2023. Paras 21 to 23 of the order read as under:
"21. In our view the respondents stand in this regard in term of the guidelines issue in the years 1999 by AICTE where for the time being qualifying the GATE is not pressed. It is submitted that at the time when the petitioner joined the Government of NCT of Delhi as Lecturer through UPSC on 21.09.2000, the relevant provision relating to counting of past service were outlined under Clause 9 in the 5th CPC AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999. In these provisions, there was no essential condition mentioned for qualifying the GATE for the purpose of grant of CAS benefits and therefore the rejection of his clairn by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
22. Since this issue has already been dealt with the Hon'ble High Court, we are of this view direction be issued to the respondents firstly we set aside impugned order by which recovery is to be ordered for not having GATE qualification is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
23. Resultantly, we hereby set aside the order dated 27.05.2016 and hereby direct the respondents to place the matter before the competent authority for relaxing the condition is one time waiver or till the finalization of national policy of conduction all India GATE for appointment in Polytechnic Colleges. By relying the judgment of Rafiq Masih Vs Union Of India we 7 Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 hereby direct the respondents not to make recovery as it is more than five years."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the response of MIT Moradabad stating that the applicant was initially selected as Adjunct Lecturer and was not a permanent faculty. He was drawing a salary of 9,000 per month. Even though the applicant was later on selected as Lecturer on regular basis in Electronics and communication engineering and appointed as Regular Lecturer (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 08.09.2000 and was granted the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that information and verification was received by the respondents themselves from MIT Moradabad that the applicant possessed all the minimum qualification prescribed by the AICTE for appointment as Lecturer (Senior Scale), however, qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer, as mentioned in letter dated 25.01.2005 are contrary to that communicated vide letter dated 12.11.2018 and 13.10.2018. 3.1 The applicant at the time of advertisement dated 08.07.1999 was only having equivalent qualification of BE/B.Tech (i.e. AMIE), 2nd division, which are contrary to the AICTE Norms of August 1990 3.2 Learned counsel for the respondents states that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer or Senior 8 Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 Lecturer at previous service were lower than prescribed by AICTE which were in existence before the issue of revised AICTE Notification dated 14.03.2000 and the applicant was having 2nd division and not GATE qualified. The applicant also did not possess valid requisite experience at the level of the Lecturer to be placed as Senior Lecturer and appointed Sr. Lecturer violating AICTE Norms by MIT.
3.3 Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that as per AICTE Norms and Standard of July 1990 a minimum length of service for eligibility to either appoint as a Senior Lecturer or to move into the grade of Lecturer (senior Scale) under Career Advancement Scheme was 8 years as a Lecturer with BE/B.Tech qualification or 6 years with ME/M. Tech qualification. As such the applicant was neither eligible for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) nor he was eligible for the appointment as Senior Lecturer held under a private engineering college. As such, appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer or Lecturer (Senior Scale) was also illegal in accordance with AICTE Norms and being AICTE approved Institution. The experience on account of such illegal appointment cannot be considered for CAS benefit.
3.4 Further in para 2 (c) of the reply it is stated letter dated 25.01.2018 and 13.10.2018 are contradictory mentioning that 9 Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 Selection Committee appointed the applicant as Lecturer w.e.f. 08.09.1999 in basic pay Rs. 8550 in the pay scale of Rs. 8000- 275-13500 and again appointed him Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the pay scale of 10000-325-15200 w.c.f. 08.09.2000 taking into account his previous experience. Whereas letter dated 13.10.2018 shows Service rendered by the applicant as Lecturer during the Period from 16.02.2000 to 01/07/2002 was Regular. Information provided by the past employer shows that appointment of the applicant with past employer (Private college) was not in accordance with AICTE Norms and as per recommendation of Selection Committee.
3.6 Learned counsel for the respondents state that the action of the respondents is justified and in accordance with AICTE Norms.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
ANALYSIS:-
5. For adjudication of the case, we shall go through the appointment letter issued by the respondents themselves which is annexed at page 67 of the Paper Book. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed to a temporary post of Lecturer (D.E.M.P.S.) in 8000-275-12,500 (revised). He was entitled to all regular allowances.
10
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 5.1 It is not in dispute that at the time of his appointment, the applicant was working at a higher level but joined at the lower post. It is also not a matter of dispute that the past services rendered by the applicant in MIT Moradabad was rejected on 04.04.2012 as on that day the revised guidelines of 1999 AICTE guidelines was in place as already quoted herein above. 5.2 The applicant was required to have first class Master's degree which the applicant has shown was of the year 1999 which was very much available at the given point of time when the applicant was selected with the respondents. The rejection is on the ground that he does not fulfill the AICTE norms which were in existence in 1989/90 and further no verification report was called for.
5.3 So far as issue of qualification as highlighted herein above, it was incumbent upon the respondents to seek such verification. The onus lies upon the respondents to seek such verification as per the rule position. It is interesting to note that in verification of the service of the applicant, such clarification was already in place and readily available at the time of selection of the applicant which was received vide communication dated 25.01.2005 issued by Moradabad Institute of Technology, Moradabad. The same is also explicitly clear by virtue of the communication dated 12.12.2011 which reads as under: 11
Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 "Subject:- Clarifications for service rendered by Mr. S.K. Gupta Lecturer, DTTE Delhi from 16.02.2000 to 01.07.2002 Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter No. F.161/8/Count. Past Serv/DDTÉ/843 dated 30.11.2011 asking for clarifications for service rendered by Mr. S.K. Gupta Lecturer DTTE Delhi from 16.02.2000 to 01.07.2002 at this Institute. Clarifications asked vide your above letter are given below :-
Point No.1 The post held by Mr.S.K. Gupta in this Institute during the period 16.02.2000 to 01.07.2002 was Lecturer/Lecturer (Senior Scale) Point No.2-The qualification for this post was the same as prescribed by AICTE for such post.
Point No.3-The post held by Mr.S.K.Gupta was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure laid down by AICTE and the affiliating University.
Point No.4- Mr. S.K. Gupta possessed all the minimum qualifications prescribed by the AICTE for appointment as Lecturer/Lecturer (Senior Scale) Point No.5-This Institute was then affiliated to U.P. Technical University. Lucknow, which has since been bifurcated into two Universities, ie Gautam Budhdha Technical University Lucknow and Mahamaya Technical University Noida. This Institute is now affiliated to Mahamaya Technical University Noida."
5.4 It is clear from the above that there appears to be non application of mind of the selection/ screening committee which in 2012 rejected the case of the applicant for counting of past services.
5.5 So far as the issue of minimum qualification is concerned, it is not in dispute that the applicant had been appointed on a lower pay scale even though he was working at senior scale.
5.6 The contention urged by the counsel for the respondents that earlier the applicant was having a consolidated salary of 12 Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 9000 and later on he was given a pay scale of one year by itself appears to be a fallacious argument in as much as it is not in dispute that the applicant rendered his services as a Lecturer in the relevant institute. Only point to be considered is whether the said period has to be counted as past services. Nothing has been brought on record that if AICTE 1999 Guidelines ought to have been applied to the facts of the present case the said services cannot be counted for the purposes of grant of Senior Selection Grade I & II. The only contention that the 1989 AICTE Guidelines were in place and GATE requirement was a condition, does not hold much water, more particularly, in light of the judgments quoted above.
5.7 We note that the respondents' argument regarding the applicant's service from 16.02.2000, to 01.07.2007, is untenable. This is because the applicant's appointment was made through a regular selection process, and the respondents were aware that the applicant had been receiving a consolidated salary or had been granted a pay scale on a regular basis.
Moreover, it is significant that the selection was treated as a fresh appointment.
6. In view of the above, the action of the respondents is uncalled for and unjustified. The respondents are directed to count the services rendered by the applicant from 16.07.2000 to 13 Item No. 43/ Court-V O.A. No. 4470/2017 01.07.2002 for the purpose of career advancement scheme and proponment has to be accorded in terms of the AICTE Scheme 1999. The applicant shall be entitled for pay fixation on notional basis, however, he shall not be entitled for arrears.
7. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ks/