Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Five petitioners before us have challenged the judgment delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 719 of 1997 on 15.1.1999 rejecting their prayer for direction to respondents to extend to them the pay0scale of Rs.

3700-5700 by treating them as Head of the Department. It is not in dispute that all five petitioners have been duly selected and appointed as Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College under respondents no. 1 and 2 prior to 20th September 1989.

15. Perusal of 2010 Regulations produced by the Assistant Government Pleader show that the same are framed under Section 23 (1) read with Section 10 (i) and (v) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. Thus, same are statutory in nature.

Its cognizance, therefore, needs to be taken by this Court. The Regulations are issued by respondent no. 3 AICTE and are acted upon by other respondents. It is, therefore, apparent that any effort on their part which militates with its validity cannot be countenanced. Similarly, clause (i) thereof after clause 1.3 having heading "General" reads that "There shall be designations in respect of teachers in Polytechnics, namely, Lecturer, Head of the Department and Workshop Superintendent". Little later again, heading "Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions"

20. Our attention has been invited to clause 6.2.3 which deals with Workshop staff. The categories of workshop staff are Workshop Superintendent. Below it is placed the post of Foreman Instructor, Workshop Instructor then Workshop Attendant. 6.2.4 deals with Workshop Superintendent. It is mentioned that he is Head of all Workshops in Polytechnics and is responsible to the Principal in all matters connected with the Workshop instruction, proper utilization of men, material and machines and maintenance in Workshops and services in various departments. At the end, again sentence "he will be in cadre of Head of Department" appears. His job description is also given and that job description is at Annexure F with writ petition. The perusal of Annexure-F shows that it is claimed to be copy of some Annexure-I and it has got heading "Teaching Load of Workshop Superintendent for odd and even term". Said Annexure or workload is not forming part of Norms and Standards for Polytechnics mentioned above. We have, therefore, pointed out this position to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is to be noted that the said pay scale of associate professor was as per the recommendations of the UGC and State of Bihar had already accepted to implement the same for teaching employees of Polytechnic and Engineering Colleges. Said Workshop Superintendents required superior qualifications. In facts before us, no UGC pay-scales as such is pointed out or pressed into service and qualifications expected are also not of same level.