Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Delay condoned.

We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.

The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

4. We could notice that identical issues were raised in the aforesaid cases of ad hoc Professor, Assistant Professor / Lecturers of the Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, which were disposed by common judgment by the learned single judge and the only difference in the present group of appeals as pointed out by the respondents is that they are appointed on contractual basis otherwise their status as ad hoc employees would be governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has confirmed the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Acharya Madhavi Bhavin & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1184 of 2017 and allied matters. Responding to the aforesaid submissions C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023 of the respondents, the appellant - State had placed on record additional affidavit, whereby the State had invited attention of this Court to the status of the original writ applicants, who appeared in the examination held by the GPSC during the interregnum period in the year 2010, 2013 and 2015 for the various branches of Engineering. It was contended by the State that by way of interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2019 in Special Civil Application No.17521 of 2019, the State Government is precluded from discontinuing their service. Thus, the petitioners being continued as on contractual basis, and having chosen to appear in the examination conducted by the GPSC, it was contended that their status be governed as per the results in exams conducted by GPSC. It was further submitted that few of the writ applicants who have failed to clear such examination but have still continued by virtue of interim protection are required to be discontinued as candidates other than the writ applicants having cleared the examination, are awaiting their appointment. On account of stay granted by this Court, the State Authorities are compelled to continue with these contractual appointees who are seeking enhanced benefits. Reliance was placed on the proposition of law that as against the ad hoc and contractual C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023 appointees due weightage is to be given to regularly selected candidates. It was further contended that in the branch of Mechanical Engineering, 24 GPSC selected candidates are awaiting appointment and similarly, in the branch of Electrical Engineering, 36 GPSC are awaiting their appointment.

8. Ms. Pathak, learned AGP has made an attempt to distinguish the case of contractual appointees as compared to the ad hoc Lecturers. She has referred to and relied upon the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Director of Technical education to highlight G.R. dated 12.09.2008 whereby decision was taken to make contractual appointment. She has relied upon the service jurisprudence as regards different categories of the appointment. She invited attention of this Court to the orders of appointment issued in the case of the present petitioners and has submitted that indisputedly, the appointment in the case of present petitioners was made on contractual basis initially for a period of 11 months, which was renewed from time to time. The terms and C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023 conditions attached to their service is reflected in their appointment order. She therefore, submitted that no vested legal right is created in favour of the petitioners and the same cannot confer and bestow any legitimate expectations of seeking similar pay to that of regular appointees. She further submitted that at the stage of appointment on contractual basis, it was clearly stipulated that they would be paid fixed pay of Rs.20,000/- per month. She has fairly submitted that such amount of fixed pay was modified pursuant to the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. She further submitted that having accepted such an appointment order on such terms and conditions, they are aware about the nature of their appointment and have worked for these many years. She also submitted that having accepted the fixed pay, they may not be permitted to make grievances with regard to the same on the principle of equal work, equal pay. She further tried to distinguish the case of the petitioners as against earlier ad hoc Lecturers post and after May, 2008, by submitting that in legal parlance, the term "temporary" or "contractual" cannot be construed to mean permanent i.e. lasting for a definite time, which is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. She therefore submitted that merely possessing qualification of C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023 permanent post cannot be sole criteria to automatically confirm the status of being permanent or equal pay. She submitted that there is huge difference as far as Lecturers appointed ad hoc basis and contractual basis are concerned, she tried to submit that the contractual or temporary appointment cannot be used in correlation to ad hoc appointments as the nature of appointments is distinct and different. She further submitted that source of selection in case of contractual appointees is different as compared to ad hoc appointees. She submitted that in the case of petitioners, the Selection Committee appointed pursuant to the Resolution had undertaken a process whereby the petitioners were selected on merits based on marks obtained in degree certificate. She further submitted that so far as ad hoc Lecturers are concerned, different procedures with regard to the selection were followed, which includes holding of written examination, followed by interview and putting them in merit list. She further submitted that in case of contractual appointees, the term period of 11 months was prescribed and fixed pay salary was given. While in the case of ad hoc Lecturers, apart from the pay-scale, other allowances like increment, vacation, earned leave, allowances, HRA, TA, DA etc. were extended. Based on such factors, learned C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023 AGP has submitted that merely assertions of "equal pay for equal work" is not sufficient. She further submitted that the petitioners were continued in service pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. In such circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners may be deed to be litigious employment and merely because an employee had continued to work under the cover of orders of the Court, the same may not entitle any right with respect to absorption, permanency pay scale etc. She referred to and relied upon additional affidavit placed on record by the appellant and submitted that the respondents, who have appeared and cleared the examination during the interregnum period have been absorbed as regular employee, however, left out respondents have not chosen not to appear or clear the examination held by the GPSC during the interregnum period. She invited the attention of this Court to the details of the advertisement issued by the GPSC examination in the case of different branches of Engineering. She further invited attention of this Court to the fact that in the year 2008, the State Government through Education Department had issued Government Resolution No. 20.05.2008 whereby the policy decision was taken by the State for appointing Lecturer on ad hoc basis pending recommendation issued from GPSC. As per the C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023 Resolution, the appointment to the post of Lecturers was to be made in the pay-scale of Rs.800-275-13000. She had referred to the aforesaid Resolution and submitted that as per the said Resolution, appointments were made on ad hoc basis through Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director of Technical Education. Therefore, as far as the ad hoc Lecturers are concerned, their appointments are to be made following the procedure prescribed under the GR. She further made an earnest attempt for not extending the service of the respondents contractual appointees by submitting that during the interregnum period, thrice examinations were held by GPSC for all the branches of engineering, whereby new selected candidates who have cleared examinations are available for regular appointment. She has placed a copy of the chart whereby it was submitted that approximately 313 respondents are involved in the present litigation. Out of which 126 candidates have given their resignations and joined other departments, 54 candidates have cleared GPSC examination and got their regular appointment as Lecturers / Assistant Professor, 86 respondents' service have been terminated due to coming of regular appointees and now at present, the issue only relates to only 47 left out respondents. C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023

15. We would like to refer to a comparative table referring to details of pay / pay scale/ first salary/ other allowances vis-a-vis regular appointed lecturers/ ad hoc lecturers before / after May 2008 and contractual lecturers.

                                      Ad hoc before
2003      GPSC                                              Contract
                                      28.05.2008
          8000-275-135400             8000-275-
          +DA                         13500
          +HRA                        +DA
          +TA                         +HRA
          +MA                         +TA                   No
          +CLA                        +MA                   Contract
          +PF                         +CLA
          Vacation                    Vacation
          LTC                         +Increment
          Increment                   NO PF

                              Ad hoc
                                                Ad hoc after
2008      GPSC                before                         Contract
                                                28.05.2008
                              28.05.2008
          8000-275-           8000-275-         8000-275-        Rs.25000/-
          135400              135400            135400           for diploma
          +DA                 +DA               +DA              Rs.30,000/-
          +HRA                +HRA              +HRA             or Degree
          +TA                 +TA               +TA
          +MA                 +MA               +MA
          +CLA                +CLA              +CLA
          +PF                 Vacation          No




  C/LPA/1159/2017                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023




                                      Increment
         Vacation
                          +Increment No Vacation
         LTC
                          NO PF       No LTC
         +Increment
                          +No 6th Pay No PF
         +6th Pay
                          Commission +6th Pay
         Commission on
                          on benefit  Commission
         benefits
                                      on benefits

Number of appointee / candidates who were appointed on contractual basis who have 126 40% resigned and joined service with other department Number of candidates, who cleared GPSC Examination during 2010 to 2015 and joined with Technical education department as 54 17% Lecturer / Assistant Professor as Regular employees.

Number of candidates Terminated due to coming of regular appointees having cleared 86 27% GPSC Examination Number of contractual appointee in service 47 15% C/LPA/1159/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2023 present (Original Petitioner) NOTE: The GPSC has held the Examination for Lecturer / Assistant Professor for Regular appointment in year 2010, 2013 and 2015. The examination details are annexured herewith.