Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3- It is the case of the petitioners that they have completed eight years of service in the cadre of Assistant Professors and are entitled to senior scale and thereafter selection grade in accordance to the Rules, Circulars and the Scheme formulated by the UGC and implemented by the State Government.

4- Before adverting to consider the merits of the matter, certain facts with regard to history of the litigation may be taken note of. Claiming the said benefit one Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada and other Assistant Professors, who were appointed in accordance to the provisions of Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1967, normally known as 'emergency appointees', claimed same benefit for grant of senior pay scale and selection grade, and when the benefit was not extended to them, they filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal, MP. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed for considering the case of Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada and others for grant of benefit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, a writ petition was filed by the State Government before a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of State of MP Vs. Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada, Writ Petition No.4863/2001. It was the case of Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada in the aforesaid proceeding that she was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor under the emergency appointment provision contained in Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1967, she was selected by the Public Service Commission and an appointment order after such selection was issued on 22.12.1997. She was awarded a PhD on 7.2.1982. In the meanwhile, State Government issued Circulars on 21.3.1989, 12.2.1992 and 11.10.1999 in the matter of awarding senior grade pay scale to Assistant Professors holding the Degree of PhD or otherwise. A qualifying period for placement in the senior pay scale was indicated in these circulars i.e... 8 years of service after regular appointment, and it was the case of Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada and others that for the purpose of considering the services rendered by them to qualify for the grant of senior pay scale, the date of their initial appointment under Rule 13(5) should be taken into consideration and not on the basis of their appointment after clearing the selection from the PSC. The State Administrative Tribunal accepting the contentions of Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada allowed the Original Application bearing No.1763/2000 vide order-dated 26.2.2001, wherein Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada was directed to be granted the senior pay scale with effect from 7.2.1992 i.e.... the date of which acquired the PhD Degree. The writ petition, as indicated hereinabove, was filed before the Division Bench by the State Government challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench on 10.8.2005 found that Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor vide order-dated 17.12.1986 in accordance to Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1967, the appointment was made after issuance of advertisement and following a selection process as contemplated under the Rules and, therefore, it was held that grant of senior pay scale and selection grade by the Tribunal was in order and the Division Bench refused to interfere into the matter. The writ petition was therefore dismissed. State Government being aggrieved by this decision approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the State Government in the case of Dr. (Smt) Seema Raizada on the ground of delay, but left the legal question open to be considered subsequently.

7- Factual aspects of the matter are not in dispute in the cases in hand. It is an admitted position that all the petitioners herein were appointed as Assistant Professors in accordance to the provisions of Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1967. Advertisements were issued in the year 1986, 1987 and 1989 respectively and they are Annexure P/14 bearing advertisement No.1/86, 2/89 and 1/89. It was indicated by the State Government that as list of eligible candidates for appointment as Assistant Professors prepared by the Public Service Commission is not available, therefore, the State Government is resorting to the provisions of emergency appointment as contained in Rule 13(5), of the Rules of 1967. Advertisements were issued in the newspaper throughout the country and applications received were processed in accordance to the procedure contemplated in Rule 13(5). The advertisement was issued as per sub-clause (a) of Rule 13(5), applications from candidates throughout the country were received in Schedule V of the Rules; applications were registered and tabulated as per the criteria laid down in sub-rule (c) of Rule 13(5). Thereafter, a Committee was constituted, which scrutinized the applications and based on the criteria laid down in sub-clause (c) of Rule 13(5) in accordance to the marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examinations namely: MA, MSc, M.Com etc, a merit list was prepared and the appointments were made in accordance to the said merit list. In all between the year 1986 to 1989, more than 1300 such appointments were made as no selection process was held by the PSC for more than 12 years from 1976 upto 1989. 8- As the appointments in question were made in accordance to Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1967, at this stage it would be appropriate to take note of the said rule, which is reproduced herein under:

"13. List of candidates recommended by the Commission:

                  xxx       xxx      xxx     xxx
                   xxx          xxx           xxx          xxx

(5) Emergency appointments:- If Commission's panel of selected candidates is not available, the posts may be filled by emergency appointments in the following manners:-

(a)    an        advertisement        shall    be   issued   by
       Government;
(b)    Applications for emergency appointments shall
       be submitted in the form prescribed in
       Schedule V.
(c)    Applications received shall be registered and
       tabulated according to the following criteria:-

"12. Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words "employment or appointment" cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of superannuation etc. The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution. (See: B.S. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute and others, AIR 1984 SC