Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Pushpa Devi And Others vs B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya And ... on 4 October, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 2372 of 2011
Date of Decision: October 4, 2013
Dr. Pushpa Devi and others
.....Petitioners
Vs.
B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vijay Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for
Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Petitioners were appointed as Guest Lecturers in different degree subjects in Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Degree College Khanpur Kalan, pursuant to different advertisements issued within the period from Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [2] the year 2009 to 2010 as per University Grants' Commission (for short 'the UGC') norms. The said Degree College is being run under Respondent No.1 University. Vide office order annexure P-7 dated July 29, 2010, the University passed resolution No.28 in its 21st Executive Committee meeting held on June 17, 2010 in respect of Guest Faculty members of the University to the effect that the Lecturers will be paid at the rate of Rs.300/- per hour subject to maximum of Rs.15000/- per month for the academic session 2010-11 commencing from July 2010.
Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of Mandamus to grant scales to the Guest Lecturers as prescribed by the UGC vide revised guidelines issued by the UGC on February 5, 2010 whereby the UGC has decided that Guest/ Part Time Lecturers who possess the minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/- per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/- per month. The said prayer was declined on the ground that the request for revision of salary of the Guest faculty can be entertained only after the receipt of orders from the State Government. The petitioners have claimed that the Guest Lecturers at other educational centers in Haryana are getting the scale of pay of Rs.25000/- per month. In this context, annexure P-13, pertaining to Guest Lecturers in Haryana Space Application Centre at Hisar has been appended as a precedent. It has been averred by the petitioners that the Government of India had issued directions on December 31, 2008 annexure P-1 by a Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [3] circular issued by Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi sent to the University Grants Commission, in which the pay scales have been revised with a decision that the said scales shall be applicable to all Universities/ State Governments. A further condition was imposed that if the State Government wish to take financial aid from the Government of India then the scheme shall be implemented in toto. A copy of the letter has been appended as Annexure P-
1. The petitioners have submitted that UGC had categorically recommended vide letter dated February 28, 2009 addressed to all Education Secretaries of all State Governments that scheme of revision of pay of the teachers and equivalent cadres should be implemented as per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. A copy of the letter dated February 28, 2009 has been appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-
2. The UGC has accepted the recommendations of 6th Pay Review Committee regarding revised guidelines for the Scheme of Appointment/ Honorarium of Guest/ Part Time Teachers and has decided that Guest/ Part Time Teachers who possess minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/- per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/- per month. The revised guidelines for the appointment of Guest/ Part Time Teachers are as under:-
"1. Guest/ Part Time Teacher may be appointed only against sanctioned post.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [4]
2. The qualifications for Guest/ Part Time Teachers should be same as those prescribed for the regular teachers of Universities/ Colleges in UGC's Regulation.
3. Selection procedure for appointing Guest/ Part Time Teachers should be the same as for a regularly appointed teachers.
4. Guest/ Part Time Teachers may not be treated like regular teachers of the faculty for the purpose of voting rights or for becoming the members of the boards of studies.
5. Retired teachers may also be considered for appointment for Guest/ Part Time Teachers.
6. Guest/ Part time teachers may not be given the benefit of allowances pension, gratuity etc. The contents of the letter may be brought to the notice of all the affiliated colleges/ institutions."
The above mentioned decision of UGC has been expressed in a letter, Annexure P-5, dated February 5, 2010 addressed to Registrar of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. It is an admitted fact that UGC has circulated the letter annexure P-5 in the shape of annexure R-2/3 to all the Central/ Deemed/ State Universities, All State Education Secretaries and all Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [5] Regional Offices of UGC on February 6, 2010 regarding revised guidelines for the Scheme of Appointment/ Honorarium of Guest/ Part Time Teachers.
The petitioners claimed that they are duly qualified for the post of Lecturers in Colleges for which minimum qualification is M.A., M.Sc. with 55% marks and Ph.D. or National Eligibility Test (NET). The petitioners are duly qualified for the post of Lecturers in Colleges as prescribed by the UGC. The other ground for claiming higher remuneration as Guest Lecturers by the petitioners is that the Haryana Government has prescribed Rs.16200/- per month for Guest Lecturers vide notification annexure P-10 dated October 18, 2010 and that the petitioners have been granted lower scales in comparison to the lecturers working in 10+2 Schools. They claimed that the regular lecturers are performing the similar duties and responsibilities but are paid three times more than what is being paid to the petitioners. For the same work load and for same working hours, the petitioners are paid maximum of Rs.15000/- per month which is clear exploitation on part of the University.
The respondent State has filed a short affidavit of Deputy Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, stating that respondent No.1 Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyala, Khanpur Kalan (Sonepat), (hereinafter referred to as "BPS Mahila Vishwavidyala'), is an autonomous institution established under BPS Mahila Vishwavidyala, Khanpur Kalan, (Sonepat) University Act 31 of 2006 and the Vice Chancellor is the Principal Executive and Academic Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [6] Officer of the University who exercises general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and that the State Government has no interference in respect of recruitments made by the University. The State Government has only a limited control in respect of matters directly related to the finance as provided in the University Act being a major funding agency providing grant-in-aid on the Plan and Non Plan side, to the University.
The UGC has field a written statement admitting its control under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956. A reference has been made to the Regulation called University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 framed in the exercise of powers by clause (e) and
(g) of sub-Section (1) of Section 26 read with Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956 and the recent amendment made in University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. It has been averred that National Eligibility Test (NET), SLET/ SET shall remain the minimum eligibility conditions for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/ Colleges/ institutions. A reference has been made to Rule 13.0 and 13.1 of the 2010 Regulations which provide for Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [7] making appointments on contract basis. The relevant provisions for appointment on contract basis read as follows:-
" 13.0 APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT BASIS 13.1 The teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms.
In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a College/ University. The qualifications and selection procedure for appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointments should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappointing Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [8] her/ him on contract basis for another session."
The stand of the respondent University in the written statement is that the petitioners do not have legal right to seek any relief as they were engaged as Guest Lecturers on the basis of 'Walk-in-Interview' as per advertisement dated June 17, 2010. A copy of the advertisement has been placed on record as annexure R-1/1 wherein it is mentioned that the Guest Lecturers were required in 10 different subjects with qualifications as per UGC norms and the interested candidates should come to attend interview alongwith application and original documents on July 5, 2010 at 9.00 a.m. in the office of B.P.S.M. Girls College, Khanpur Kalan. It is claimed that the petitioners had agreed to be paid Rs.250/- per lecture with maximum of Rs.10000/- per month. It is also claimed that they had not been engaged as Guest Lecturers on the basis of regular selection process and that in order to cope up with the work-load in different subjects, advertisement annexure R- 1/1 had been given for engaging Guest Lecturers. In order to evade the letter of Ministry of Human Resource and Development dated December 31, 2008, annexure P-1, the stand taken by respondent No.1 is that the University was established by State Legislature Act of 2006 and that the "Guest Faculty" which was engaged in the degree college of the respondent University was not under the UGC Scheme and that the expenses with regard to the Guest Faculty are met out of the budget head of the University which is granted by the State Government and that the same has got nothing Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [9] to do with the UGC grant. In order to avoid to shoulder the burden, it has been pleaded that it is the State Government which is to take into consideration different aspects with regard to the payment which is to be made to the regular faculty as also the Guest Lecturers. The Guest Lecturers are not placed in any regular pay scale as they are engaged on work load basis as a temporary measure. It has been claimed that the advertisement by virtue of which the petitioners were engaged were restricted advertisements and their selection was made on the basis of 'Walk-in- Interview'. It is claimed that the appointment was not by regular, duly constituted selection committee as such the petitioners do not meet the UGC guidelines to claim the benefit of letter annexure P-5 written to Registrar, Aligarh Muslim University and to Registers of all the Universities and Deemed Universities, vide annexure R-2/3. It is a firm stand of the University that the petitioners having not been engaged through a selection procedure which is required to be followed for regularly appointed teachers, the petitioners cannot have a legitimate claim on the basis of the decision of the UGC vide annexure P-5 (annexure R-2/3).
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of decision of UGC directing all the States and affiliated Colleges/ Universities to grant Rs.1000/- per lecture and maximum of Rs.25000/- per month to the Guest Teachers who are duly qualified. The second ground taken by the counsel for the petitioners is that the Guest Lecturers working in other Universities Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [10] are paid more emoluments in comparison to the respondent University. On the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' counsel for the petitioners has claimed that even the lecturers working in 10+2 Schools are getting more salary than the petitioners and that the regular lecturers are also performing the same duties and responsibilities who are paid approximately Rs.35000/- per months which is three times more than what the petitioners are paid.
I have considered all the contentions and have opted not to adjudicate the right of the petitioners on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as it is not within the ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court to compare the work-load, quantum of work, quality of work and the working hours of the petitioners vis-à-vis the regularly appointed Lecturers and the Lecturers appointed in the Schools having 10+2 curriculum. The claim of the petitioners is being considered solely on the basis of the decision of the UGC to grant Rs.1000/- per lecture and maximum Rs.25000/- per month to the Guest Lecturers who are duly qualified. Since the grant of higher emoluments to the petitioners who are working for a college under a University constituted under UGC Act 1956 and governed by the Regulations of the UGC, it was deemed appropriate to determine the effect of the decisions of the Central Government and the UGC so far as the grant of emoluments and pay scale are concerned.
The short question which is required to be determined in the present case is whether the petitioners who were appointed as Guest Lecturers under respondent No.1 University, an autonomous statutory body Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [11] constituted under Section 26 of the UGC Act, is not bound to accept the command of the UGC to grant pay of Rs.1000/- per lecture to the petitioners to a maximum of Rs.25000/- per month as per the guidelines for the Guest/ Part Time Teachers vide annexure P-5 (annexure R-2/3). The UGC has been constituted under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 (Act No.3 of 1956). The Act was enacted to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities. The Commission under the provisions of the UGC Act has been entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities. For the said purpose, the Commission has been vested with the power to recommend to any university the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advice the universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendations as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of it's functions. Section 26 of the UGC Act (Act No.3 of 1956) gives power to the Commission to make regulations consistent with the Act. It permits the Commission to define the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which the applicant is expected to give instructions. As per Section 2 (f) University Grants Commission Act, Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [12] "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act. The above said provision implies that a University constituted under a statute requires to be recognized by the UGC in accordance with the regulations. Section 3 of the UGC Act enables the Central Government, on the advice of the Commission to declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause 2 (f) of the UGC Act. As the standard of teaching, examination, research etc. are to be maintained, Section 12 of the Act provides that, it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co- ordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. The Commission is also authorized to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions. Under the Act, UGC is invested with powers specified Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [13] in various classes of Section 12. These include power to recommend to a University the measures necessary for the improvement of the University Education and to advice in respect of action to be taken for the performances of implementing such recommendations. The UGC is also invested with powers to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of such functions. A reference can be made to clauses (d) and (j) of Section 12 of the Act, which are as under:-
"12 (d) Recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation;
12(j) Perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions."
The above said clauses are wide enough to empower UGC to frame the regulations. Section 26 (1) (g) of the Act confers specific and sufficient power under the UGC to frame regulations regulating the Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [14] maintenance of standards and coordination of work and facilities in the Universities. The UGC, in the exercise of the powers vested in it had been framing regulations from time to time. For instance, University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 was made in March 2000 which was subsequently amended vide Regulations of 2002. It is also not disputed that the UGC Regulations of 2010, which has been referred to hereinbefore, provided the appointment of teachers on contract basis when it is absolutely necessary when the student teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms but it was limited to the extent of 10% of the total number of faculty posts in the College/ University. So far as the qualification and selection procedure for appointment of Faculty member on contract basis is concerned, the qualifications and selection procedure has been held to be the same as applicable to the regular appointed lecturers. It is open to the college/ University to pay fixed emoluments to the teachers but to safeguard the interest of the teachers and the taught, it has been provided that the emoluments to contract teachers should not be less than monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor and that such appointment should not be made initially for more than one academic session and performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before reappoint him/ her on contract basis for another session. Since 1956 Act is traceable to Entry 66, List I, VII Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [15] Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Regulations framed by the UGC regarding the minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer is binding on the State Government and the concerned University. The well merited role and authority of UGC has been accepted and considered by the Apex Court in few judgments. Reference can be made to University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh, 1994 (Suppl.) 3 SLR 217, and Bharathidasan University and another Vs. All India Council of Technical Education and others, AIR 2001 SC 2861 observing that UGC has well merited role of primacy to play in shaping as well as stepping up a coordinated development and improvement in the standards of education and research in the sphere of education. The said judgments referred to the role and duty of the Commission for determination and maintenance of the standards of teaching. The authority and duty of UGC to maintain good standard of education have been recognized in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others, 2013 (6) JT 277, though in different context, in juxtaposition with the role of All India Council for Technical Education under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the role of AICTE has been held to be advisory and recommendatory and the role has been held to subserve the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms subject to the authority of UGC for appropriate action.
So far as the letters annexure P-5 (annexure R-2/3) issued by UGC is concerned, it was admittedly circulated by the UGC. Any Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [16] notification, regulation or Rules of UGC have got binding force for the purpose of appointment and qualifications to the post of Lecturers. As per the reply filed on behalf of UGC, the assessment of merit and suitability of a candidate for appointment to any post of teacher, is within the domain of the concerned Selection Committee. The consequences of failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of the Commission are enumerated in Section 14 of the UGC Act which reads as follows:-
"If any University grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in sub- section (5) of section 12-A in contravention of the provisions of that sub- section or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by the Commission under section 12 or section 13, or contravenes the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub- section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26, the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University or such failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission."
Subsequently UGC framed the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [17] Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. Clause 3 of the said regulations provides the consequences of failure of Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission as per provisions of Section 14 of the UGC Act which has been reproduced hereinabove. Letter No. F.10-1/2009(PS) dated February 6, 2010, annexure R-2/3 provides that Guest/ Part Time Teachers possessing minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor should be paid Rs.1000/- per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/- per month. The above said emoluments are accompanied by certain revised guidelines which have come into operation w.e.f. January 1, 2010. UGC claims that the said circular though is not part of UGC Regulations but the Universities are required and expected to give effect to the above said circular regarding the appointment of Guest/ Part Time Teachers in the Universities and Colleges. It has been reiterated by UGC that if University contravenes the condition as contained in the circular dated February 6, 2010, the Commission may take action against such University in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The circular dated February 6, 2010 is in consonance with the objectives of UGC Act and UGC Regulations 2010 and the same being consistent with the statute, standard provisions and the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would be deemed to be a law and will be considered to be a law if seen in context to Article 13 (3) (a) of the Constitution of India. It is not denied by respondent No.1 University that it Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [18] has been constituted and has got the recommendation of the University Grants Commission. The circular annexure P-5 (annexure R-2/3) has got a statutory force and is required to be implemented by respondent No.1 University in order to escape any action under Section 14 of the UGC Act.
I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the State that the petitioners having accepted lesser emoluments will be estopped to claim the higher emoluments but I do not find any force in the same as the recognition of respondent No.1 University binds it to follow the regulations made by UGC. In case of failure of the University to comply with any of the recommendations of the Commission, the Commission can with-hold the grant proposed to be made out of the funds of the Commission. As the University has approved the appointment of the petitioners as Guest Faculty pursuant to the advertisement annexure R-1/1, it is not permissible for the University to pay the emoluments which are not recommended by the UGC. The advertisement annexure R/1/1 dated June 17, 2010 issued in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper shows that the incumbents interested to be appointed as Guest Lecturers in different subjects having qualifications as per UGC norms were invited to give an impression that the UGC norms regarding qualifications, eligibility and emoluments were known to the employer and an employee.
Since the University is a statutory authority functioning under the supervision of the Commission constituted under a statute i.e. UGC Act and is governed by the Regulations and bound to follow the Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [19] recommendations and regulations to save itself from the penal action under Section 14 of the UGC Act, it will be presumed that appointment of the petitioners as Guest Faculty Lecturers is an act performed under the Statute and should be presumed to be governed by the provisions of law and is expected to be reasonable. There are certain presumptions which are inferences or propositions which derive their force or artificial effect from the law and must be drawn when an act is done by a statutory body bound by the strict rules and regulations, the act done will be considered a legal act in accordance with the Rules and regulations and would have the effect of estopping the statutory authority to deny its liability which is required to fulfill the legal obligation. There cannot be an estoppel against an act of Legislature. The appointment of faculty of Part Time Lecturers is permissible under the Rules of UGC subject to certain conditions. When a selection is made by an institution it will be presumed that all the necessary conditions and requirements stand fulfilled. The stand of the respondent University that as the petitioners had agreed to receive lesser emoluments for a work done they are estopped to challenge the same, is baseless. It is the statutory obligation of University to pay Rs.1000/- per lecture to Guest Lecturers. An agreement to work for meager money would be unconscionable under Section 23 of the Contract Act and will not prevent the lecturers to enforce their legal rights.
The regulations of the UGC are binding on respondent No.1 University. Appointment made on the basis of the advertisement annexure Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.22 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2372 of 2011 [20] R-1/1 will be deemed to be a selection pursuant to advertisement on the basis of the qualifications laid down by UGC norms. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to be paid Rs.1000 per lecture to a maximum of Rs.25000/- per month. After availing the services of the petitioners, they cannot be deprived of the emoluments which they are legally entitled to. Without expression of any opinion on the eligibility, capability and merits of the petitioners it is sufficient to observe that having performed the duties of Guest/ Part Time teachers in a College run under University under the recommendations of the UGC, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the financial benefits which is sine qua non for maintaining standards of teaching of the teachers and the taughts.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The order annexure P-7 prescribing Rs.300/- per hour subject to maximum of Rs.15000/- qua the petitioners is declared to be illegal, unreasonable and discriminatory. A direction is issued to the respondents to grant the petitioners remuneration at the rate of Rs.1000/- per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.25000/- per month w.e.f. the date of their appointment without prejudice to other legal rights of the petitioners or the respondents. The petitioners will be paid the arrears within a period of three months by respondent No.1 University with liberty to claim the additional burden from any of the State authorities liable to provide financial assistance/ grant.
October 4, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI)
sanjay JUDGE
Gupta Sanjay
2013.10.22 15:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh