Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

For proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the matter, it is necessary to state the few facts in brief :

The appellant-Smt. R. Sulochana Devi joined the Andhra Christian College as Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry on 1.8.1968. She was promoted as Lecturer in an aided post on 1.8.1969 and her promotion was confirmed from the date of appointment, i.e., with effect from 1.8.1969. She was given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme of 16 years and 21 years. She was also appointed as Vice Principal and Associate Principal and also admitted to grant in aid. The respondent- College appointed respondent No.1, Smt. D.M. Sujatha, as Lecturer in English w.e.f. 30.8.1969 and the Board of Education of the respondent-College approved the promotion of the appellant as Lecturer as also the appointment of respondent No.1 as Lecturer from the respective dates of their appointment. On 1.5.1972, Smt. D.M. Sujatha, respondent No.1, was reverted to the post of Junior Lecturer and worked in the same post for about four years up to 31.8.1974. She was again re-designated as a Lecturer in English only on 1.7.1976. By proceedings dated 11.12.1975, the Director of Higher Education directed the Director that respondent No.1 be treated as Lecturer w.e.f. 30.8.1969 by extending general protection. The Director of Higher Education by the proceedings dated 11.12.1975 issued directions for the purpose of giving general protection to Lecturers/Junior Lecturers working in various institutions to be treated as Lecturers for the purpose of service and seniority from their respective dates of appointment as Lecturer/Junior Lecturer, if they are appointed in the grant-in-aid post prior to 1.5.1971. In the seniority, the appellant was placed at S.No.20 and respondent No.1 was placed at S.No.23. The appellant was promoted as Vice-Principal of the College by proceedings of the Manager of the Management.

Learned counsel appearing for the College invited our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the College in this matter. It is useful to reproduce para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Management which reads thus:

"It is respectfully submitted that even if seniority is taken into consideration, the Petitioner herein is senior to the 1st Respondent. The College has appointed the petitioner herein on 1.8.1968 as Demonstrator (aided) in the Department of Chemistry. On 1.8.1969 i.e. one year later the Petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in an aided post w.e.f. 1.8.1969. The 1st Respondent herein was appointed as Lecturer in English from 30.08.1969. There is a clear gap of one month between the appointment of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent herein. It is respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent was reverted to the post of Jr. Lecturer from 1.5.70 up to 31.8.1974. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the 1st Respondent can be junior to the petitioner herein. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner had never suffered any reversion. Moreover, the Petitioner herein was given the benefit of career advancement scheme of 16 years and 21 years. It is respectfully submitted that because it was always felt that the Petitioner herein should be the successor to Shri P. Andrew, at the time when Shri P. Andrew was given the Principalship the Petitioner was appointed as the Vice Principal and this decision was taken by the management of the institution consciously as the management thought that in terms of seniority as also the capability and efficiency, the Petitioner herein is a better candidate. Since 13.01.2000, the petitioner herein was discharging duties as Vice-Principal of the college and proceedings to this effect have also been issued by the manager of the Andhra Evangelical Luthern Chruch, Guntur."

The learned counsel for the Government of Andhra Pradesh drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the writ petition.

"The 6th respondent was appointed as demonstrator in Chemistry on 1-8-1968 in the 5th respondent college. Later, she was appointed as lecturer in the department of Chemistry with effect from 1-8-1969 by the principal, A.C.College Guntur vide orders dt. 1-8-1969. The Board of education of college of the education approved the appointment of the 6th respondent at its meeting on 17-4-1970 vide their minutes No. 155/22. The director of collegiate education Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has also submitted the 6th respondent into grant-in-aid in the audit report of the 2nd respondent for the years 1969-70 (i.e. the year of her appointment) 1970-71 and 1971-72. The 6th respondent has sufficient work load i.e. 18 hours per week, on par with the other senior lecturers for the academic years 1969-70; 1970-71; 1971-72; 1973-74; 1974-75 and 1975-76. By counting the service w.e.f. 1-8- 1969; the 6th respondent was awarded selection grade scale under career advancement scheme with effect from 1-1-1986 by virtue of completing more than 16 years of service which is the pre-requisite condition in the A.P. revised scale (UGC) 1986. It is also submitted that the then special officer of A.C. College, Guntur who was also the then regional joint Director of Collegiate education, Guntur has recorded the grant-in-aid certificate in the service book of the 6th respondent to the effect that the incumbent has been working as Lecturer in the grant-in-aid post with effect from 1-8-1969. On the same analogy adopted in respect of the petitioner; the 6th respondent was entitled to the general protection as per the orders of the 2nd respondent vide Rc No. 4209/K.II.3/5, dt. 11-12-1975. Since, the 6th respondent was appointed and worked in the grant-in-aid post of Lecturer prior to 1-5-1971; the post of Lecturer of 6th respondent was protected as per general protection and she was treated as Lecturer w.e.f. 1-8-1969 vide 3rd respondent orders No.L.Dis.No. 758/B2/2002, dt. 15-4-2002.

We have perused the proceedings dated 15.02.2000 by the RJD. It was an opinion rendered at the instance of the Correspondent of the College. Thus, it was purely an opinion rather than an administrative order and when the appellant made a representation, the same was reconsidered and a proper opinion was rendered on 15.04.2002. Thus, in our opinion, it does not amount to review. Further they are not quasi judicial orders passed in exercise of any statutory power and it does not oust the jurisdiction of the RJD to reconsider it and pass revised order. Therefore, the submission of Mr. P.P.Rao that this Court has to consider whether the RJD has power to review its own order and whether such a power is conferred on such authority has no merits and cannot be accepted. In this connection, we are in full agreement with the arguments advanced by Mr. T.L.V. Iyer on behalf of the appellant. Much arguments were advanced by Mr. P.P.Rao that because of the audit objection the appellant was not paid the salary of the Lecturer. This contention has no merit. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as Demonstrator w.e.f. 01.08.1969 and she had drawn her salary as a Lecturer from 01.08.1969 in an aided vacancy. It was submitted that though there was some audit objection, but no recoveries were made against the appellant and she continued as Lecturer althrough. The argument of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the first respondent that while issuing the modified order dated 15.04.2002 the RJD has not issued any notice to the first respondent, cannot be accepted, since the first respondent was nowhere in the picture at that time. In fact, the dispute as to seniority at that time was inter se the appellant and one Andrew and the first respondent did not raise any dispute. The first respondent did not bother as to the claim of the appellant that she is senior to Mr. Andrew. If she was really concerned, she could have joined the issue and worked out her remedies. The fact remains that the first respondent did not raise any objection immediately after the order was passed on 15.04.2002 declaring the seniority of the appellant in the post of Lecturer and that it should be reckoned from 01.08.1969. She filed writ petition only after about an year of issuance of the said order dated 15.04.2002. Further, issuing of any notice to the first respondent in the proceedings in G.O.Rt. No. 308 dated 22.04.2003 also does not arise. Since the said G.O. has not altered anybody's seniority. The said G.O. was issued, in fact, in pursuance of a representation of the appellant dated 13.03.2003. The first respondent, in our opinion, was not entitled for any relief, since her right as such either under the Proceedings dated 15.02.2000 or the Order dated 15.04.2002 of the RJD was affected. Under these circumstances, there was no necessity for the Government to issue any notice to the first respondent while issuing the said G.O. It is true that there was some audit objection but the fact remains no recoveries were made against the appellant treating her only as demonstrator and that would in our opinion categorically indicate that the appellant was althrough was a Lecturer in the aided vacancy right from 01.08.1969 as such she was senior to Mr. Andrew and was deprived of her right being promoted to the post of Principal on 31.01.2001 and again when the first respondent was made in charge Principal of the College w.e.f. 01.05.2003 on retirement of Mr. Andrew. Thus, it is seen that the appellant has suffered humiliation in view of the wrong decision taken by the RJD earlier on 15.03.2000 which was later modified by an order dated 15.04.2002.