Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Meera Devi vs Himachal Pradesh University & Another on 7 January, 2020
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3054 of 2019
Decided on: 07.01.2020
.
1.
Dr. Meera Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh University & another ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr.Kush Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral)
The respondent-University had issued advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Life Long Learning.
Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner, being duly eligible for selection, had applied for the siad post and was appointed as Guest Faculty for the Academic Session 2015-2016 on 20th August, 2015, against a remuneration of Rs.500/- per lecture.
The petitioner continued, as such, for the Academic Session 2015-16 and in pursuance to the aforesaid appointment, the petitioner was also retained for the academic session 2016-17.
On 21.01.2017, the respondent-University had issued Advertisement No.11/2017, wherein one post of Assistant ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 20:25:38 :::HCHP 2 Professor in the Department of Life Long Learning was advertised. The petitioner also submitted an application for the .
said post, but the said process has been withheld. On 12.08.2017, again fresh process for engagement of Guest Faculty was initiated in the aforesaid Department and the petitioner was again appointed for Academic Session 2017-18.
The appointment was initially for three years or till the regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier.
2. In August 2019 without giving any reason, the the petitioner has been orally discontinued from service. After discontinuation of the petitioner, the respondent-University again issued an advertisement calling for walk-in-interview for engagement of Guest Faculty/Teacher and the petitioner again applied for the same, but the process has been kept in abeyance. It is submitted that on termination of the services of the petitioner, the respondent-University made appointment on temporary basis. It is stated that the method adopted by the respondent-University in terminating the services of the petitioner and further engaging on temporary basis is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and another, (1996) 7 SCC 562 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 20:25:38 :::HCHP 3 and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the department .
requires appointment on permanent basis till the winding up of the department, but the system adopted by the respondents of discontinuing her services by giving artificial breaks is contrary to the judgment referred to supra.
3. It is further submitted that the payment of Rs.500/-
per lecture, which was being paid to the petitioner, is contrary to the norms/guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, vide Notification No.F.25-1/2018 (PS/MISC.), dated 28th January, 2019, in which the honorarium fixed for Guest Faculty has been enhanced to Rs.1,500/- per lecture, subject to maximum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The respondent-
University has engaged the services of the petitioner by paying only Rs.500/- per lecture, which amounts to exploitation of the petitioner.
4. Respondent-University filed reply to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's services were engaged purely on temporary basis for the academic session and on completion of the same, her services have been discontinued. Hence, there is no illegality in ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 20:25:38 :::HCHP 4 termination of the services of the petitioner. He further submits that after discontinuation of the services of the petitioner, the .
respondent-University has again issued a notification for appointment on temporary basis, for which, the process of selection is going on. In the meanwhile, since the academic session is over, the respondents have issued a notification for appointment on regular basis in January 2020 and if the petitioner is eligible, he may submit his application, which shall be considered accordingly.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The appointment of the petitioner as a Guest Faculty Lecturer on payment of Rs.500/- from 28 th August, 2015, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent-University is running a course called Life Long Learning and this course will continue till the same is closed by the respondent-University. When such being the case, it is incumbent upon the respondents to fill up the post on regular basis instead of filling up the same on temporary basis on payment of Rs.500/- per lecture, which is a classification of exploitation adopted by the respondent-University. The ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 20:25:38 :::HCHP 5 respondent-University is a model State and is imparting education to students all over the country. The petitioner, who .
has possessed Ph.D Degree, is being exploited by the respondent-University by paying a meager amount of Rs.500/-
per lecture, not exceeding Rs.15,000/- per month, which amounts to arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.
Despite the fact that the UGC guidelines/norms are binding on the Universities, the respondent-University is disregarding the same by exploiting the petitioner. It is unfortunate that the persons like Vice-Chancellor and Registrar etc. of respondent-
University are indulging in these practices.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Verma's case (supra) has held that temporary employee should not be replaced by other temporary employee. The direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Universities and it is presumed that the respondent-
University had the knowledge of the aforesaid judgment, but despite the same, it proceeds in contravention of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is apt to reproduce para-4 of the judgment referred to above:
"4. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that there was an ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 20:25:38 :::HCHP 6 admission in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court that there were vacancies and that, therefore, the respondents are entitled to be .
continued in service. We do not agree with the contention. The vacancies require to be filled up in accordance with the Rules and all the candidates who would otherwise be eligible are entitled to apply for when recruitment is made and seek consideration of their claims on merit according to the Rules for direct recruitment along with all the eligible candidates. The appointment r on daily wages cannot be a conduit pipe for regular appointments which would be a back-door entry, detrimental to the efficiency of service and would breed seeds of nepotism and corruption. It is equally settled law that even for Class IV employees recruitment according to Rules is a precondition. Only work-charged employees who perform the duties of transitory nature are appointed not to a post but are required to perform the work of transitory and urgent nature so long as the work exists. On temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee."
8. As the Department of Life Long Learning is continuing in nature, the University should take steps to fill up the posts on regular basis and the employees should be continued to be paid the salary attached to the said post. The method adopted by the respondent-University of making ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 20:25:38 :::HCHP 7 temporary appointments and replacing the same by another temporary appointments, is contrary to the provisions of Article .
39(1)(d) of the Constitution and further the method adopted for paying very meager salary to the petitioner is violative of the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-University is directed to calculate the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. January, 2019 and pay the due and admissible salary to the petitioner. The petitioner, who was appointed on 20th August, 2015, shall continue till the regular appointment is made. The past services and experience of the petitioner is to be kept in mind by the selection authority while making the regular selections.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( L. Narayana Swamy), Chief Justice ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua), Judge January 07, 2020 ( vt ) ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2020 20:25:38 :::HCHP