Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs National Institute Of Technology ... on 23 January, 2019
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari, Harnaresh Singh Gill
CWP No. 1137 of 2018 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 1137 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.1.2019
Mahesh Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner
Versus
National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate
for respondent No. 3-UOI.
****
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J (ORAL)
Heard. Rule returnable forthwith.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
The petitioner has made the following prayer in the present
petition:-
"Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Clause 6 (a) (iii) [under
Note 1] of Schedule 'E' of the First Statutes of the National
Institutes of Technology as contained in the notification
dated 21.7.2017 (P/4) and the consequent notification issued
by the NIT dated 28.11.2017 (P/6), whereby the petitioner
(who is working as Associate Professor in the pay band of
Rs. 37400-67000 having AGP of Rs. 9,000/-) is required to
undergo a selection process for being mapped (migrated)
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2019 11:54:01 :::
CWP No. 1137 of 2018 (O&M) -2-
into AGP of Rs. 9500/- for the post he is already holding in
the same pay band. It is irrational and illegal since the
petitioner is not been considered for promotion to a higher
post and therefore cannot be made to undergo the selection
process."
The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 27.12.1996 in NIT
(then Regional Engineering College). On 1.7.2004, the petitioner was
granted senior scale of pay. Thereafter on 1.7.2007, he was granted
selection grade. Eventually, 6th pay commission's recommendations came
into force and on 31.12.2008, a notification was issued in which relevant
clause 2(a)(xi), qua the petitioner, reads thus:-
"Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service at present
shall continue to be designated as Lecturer (Selection
Grade) or Readers, as the case may be, until they are
placed in the Pay Band of Rs. 37,400-67000 and
re-designated as Associate Professor in the manner
described in (x) above."
Vide order dated 29.7.2010, passed by National Institute of
Technology Kurukshetra, at Serial No. 3, the petitioner's name appears and
he was ordered to be re-designated with effect from 1.7.2010 as Associate
Professor.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not acquire Ph.D.
qualification. It is a well known fact that at the period UGC has been issuing
notifications and orders in the matter of enhancement of qualifications. It is
also well known that U.G.C has been protecting the employment of those
who did not have the enhanced qualification indicated by UGC but by
putting certain reasonable conditions. As stated earlier, the petitioner does
not possess Ph.D. qualification and that is why the process of mapping into,
was buttressed into service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's age
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2019 11:54:01 :::
CWP No. 1137 of 2018 (O&M) -3-
is above 50 years. It is in this context, we think that the learned counsel for
the respondents are right in saying that sub clause (a) rather than sub clause
(b) would apply in the case of the petitioner since he has crossed the age of
50 years. Clause 6 (a) (iii) of the notification, in relation to the petitioner,
who has crossed the age of 50 years, in Schedule 'E' under statute 23 (5) (a)
reads thus:-
"(6) The permanent faculty members who have put in more
than ten years experience, but have not acquired Ph.D.
Qualification as on the date of these notifications shall be
mapped into four-tier flexible system as one time measure as
per following norms:
(a) Permanent faculty with age fifty or above:
(i) The Assistant Professors with Academic Grade Pay
of Rs. 7000 shall be mapped at the level of
Assistant Professor with Academic Grade Pay of
Rs. 8000, provided they have at least 10 credit
points in their lifetime.
(ii) The Assistant Professors with Academic Grade Pay
of Rs. 8000 shall be mapped at the level of
Associate Professor with Academic Grade Pay of
Rs. 9500, provided they have at least 25 credit
points in their lifetime.
(iii) The Associate Professors with Academic Grade
Pay of Rs. 9000 shall be mapped at the level of
Associate Professor with Academic Grade Pay of
Rs. 9500, provided they have at least 25 credit
points in their lifetime.
Provided, they have been found suitable through a Selection
Committee duly constituted under the Statutes."
The real grievance that is conveyed by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the proviso to the said clause (6) provides for constitution
of selection committee under the statutes for finding out whether the
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2019 11:54:01 :::
CWP No. 1137 of 2018 (O&M) -4-
candidate is suitable or not for granting AGP of Rs. 9500/-. On this
grievance, we have heard learned counsel for the rival parties for quite some
time.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the real
reason for constitution of selection committee is to verify as to whether the
candidate at this age of the petitioner, complies with the conditions laid
down in the notification and in particular the candidates having at least 25
credit points in their lifetime. Except this, according to the learned counsel
for the petitioners and as is clear from the notification itself, there is no
other object of constitution of selection committee. To put in other words,
the submission is that the selection committee is constituted formally to find
out whether the said conditions and the ancillary conditions are satisfied or
not and nothing beyond that. Upon reading of notification in entirety and
upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and the statement
made by counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of the notification, we
think that the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents are
correct. We are of the opinion that the petitioner who earned the experience
as Associate Professor for about 10 years cannot be asked to have his merit
tested by the selection committee. Thus, in our opinion, the process of
finding out 25 credit points in their lifetime along with ancillary points by
the selection committee, is in the nature of verification to achieve the object
sought to be achieved. Not only that the respondents have also agreed to this
interpretation which we have stated above.
In the above background, the counsel for the petitioner also
states that the petitioner was only worried about facing the selection
committee. But in view of the discussion made above and the statement
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2019 11:54:01 :::
CWP No. 1137 of 2018 (O&M) -5-
made by counsel for the respondents, we think the grievance of the
petitioner does not survive. In the result, we make the following order:-
ORDER
(i) CWP No. 1137 of 2018 is partly allowed.
(ii) The petition is disposed of with the above clarification.
(iii) Interim order stands vacated.
(iv) The respondents are entitled to go ahead with the process they have started.
(A.B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE January 23, 2019 Gurpreet Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2019 11:54:01 :::