Madras High Court
The Principal vs V.Geetha on 10 March, 2022
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.39 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 39 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.336 of 2019
1. The Principal
Pondicherry Engineering College
Puducherry- 605 014.
2. Union Territory of Pondicherry
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry. .. Appellants
-vs-
V.Geetha .... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to set aside the order
dated 20.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.28991 of 2012.
For Appellants : Ms.P.Priyadharshini
for Ms.N.Mala
For Respondent : Ms.Y.Kavitha
***
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.39 of 2019
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28991 of 2012 wherein, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the First Appellant herein, to take into account the past services rendered by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner in Government Polytechnic College for the purpose of granting benefits under Career Advancement Scheme and grant her other consequential benefits, if she is otherwise qualified.
2. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the service rendered by the Respondent originally at the Government Polytechnic College, under the control of Pondicherry Institute of Post Metric Technical Education (PIPMATE) during the period from 12.02.2022 to 27.02.2022 can be counted for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme.
3. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner left the services of the Government Polytechnic College by submitting technical resignation to join Pondicherry Engineering College on 28.02.2002. It is the case of the Appellants that the services of 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.39 of 2019 the respondents at the Government Polytechnic College ought not to have been taken into account for the purpose of considering the Career Advancement Scheme, inasmuch as the appellant is of the view that the Polytechnic College is lower in rank than the Government Engineering Colleges.
4. We find that the submission may not have merit for the following reasons:
(i) A reading of Clause (viii) of University Grants Commission guidelines relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellants would indicate that if three criteria viz., (i) same qualification, (ii) same hierarchy of grade/scale of pay; and (iii) appointment in accordance with prescribed selection procedure are satisfied, then the services rendered by the Respondent in the Government Polytechnic College could be taken into account.
Importantly, the learned Single Judge has recorded that duties discharged by the Respondent and the qualification prescribed for the post, the promotional avenues and the pay scales are one and the same in both the Government Polytechnic College and the Pondicherry Engineering College and the said facts are not disputed in the Counter Affidavit. This being the case, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants that the services of the Government Polytechnic College cannot be taken into account only on the basis it is not Government Engineering College may not be justified.
3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.39 of 2019
(ii) It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Respondent herein did not posses requisite qualification viz., M.Tech/M.E, which is the minimum qualification required for the post of Lecturer. We find that the above submission is misconceived and contrary to the notifications issued by the AICTE, which only prescribes that for the post of Lecturer the requisite qualification is First Class Bachelor degree. It is not in dispute that the Writ Petitioner acquired the requisite Bachelor Degree during the relevant period and it is further contended by the Writ Petitioner that she had done M.Tech in the year 1999. Thus the second submission of the Appellants also does not seem to have any merit.
5. It is the case of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner that similarly placed candidates have been extended the benefits, which is also recorded by the learned Single Judge, as would be clear from the following paragraph of the learned Single Judge's order under:
"9. In an identical situation, this Court has directed the first respondent herein to count the services of S.Palanivel, who is the petitioner is the said writ petition who had rendered similar service in another institution in Andhra Pradesh and the said decision has also been implemented by the respondents. Moreover, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances, other lecturers Mr.S.Chandramathy and 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.39 of 2019 Mr.S.Kothandaraman, whose past services had also been counted. The being the case, she would submit that the denial of past service rendered by the petitioner herein is per se discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She would further submit that since the qualification, method of recruitment, discharge of duties and promotion of higher grades are one and the same as between Government Polytechnic College and the first respondent college and both the institutions are governed by AICTE and UGE guidelines there could not be any discriminatory treatment between the lecturer working in Government Polytechnic College and in the first respondent college. In the circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner dated 30.05.2012 cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are practically not controverted meaning that there is full justification in the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition."
6. We also find that identical question has been considered in another matter reported in S.Palanivel Vs. The Principal and Anr reported in 2010 2 CTC 160, wherein similar submissions were rejected.
7. For all the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.39 of 2019
8. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
10.03.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
arr
1. The Principal
Pondicherry Engineering College
Puducherry- 605 014.
2. The Secretary to Government
Education Department,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.39 of 2019
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
arr
W.A.No. 39 of 2019
10.03.2022
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis