JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. These petitions are directed against order dated 2.7.1998 passed by Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The facts necessary for deciding the issue raised by the petitioners are that in pursuance of the advertisements issued by the Director, Technical Education, Union territory, Chandigarh in the years 1995 and 1997, the non- official respondents applied for appointment as Lecturers in Government Polytechnic and on being recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committees, they were appointed against the advertised posts in Central Polytechnic, Sector 26, Chandigarh and government Polytechnic for Women, Sector 10, Chandigarh on contract basis on fixed salary of Rs. 3500/- per month. The tenure of their contractual engagements were extended from time to time. They made representation to the authorities of Union Territory, Chandigarh for payment of salary in the regular time scale by asserting that the nature of duties being performed by them were similar to those performed by regularly appointed persons who were being paid in the regular pay scale, but failed to evoke any response from the concerned authorities. Therefore, they file a applications under Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’) for directing the non-applicants (petitioners herein) to pay them salary in the regular time scale in accordance with the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”.
3. In the written statements filed on behalf of the petitioners, it was averred that after having joined the service as Lecturers on contract basis, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms and conditions embodied in the letters of their appointment. They also averred that appointments on contract basis had been made keeping in view the interest of the students because the process of regular selection was likely to take time. They further averred that the duties performed by the respondents were not similar to those performed by regular Lecturers and, therefore, they are not entitled to be paid salary in the regular time scale.
4. In their replications, the non-official respondents averred that the nature of duties being performed by them were quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those performed by regular appointees and, therefore, there was no justification to pay them fixed salary.
5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and hearing their Advocates, the Tribunal allowed the applications and directed the petitioners to pay salary to the non-official respondents in the regular pay scale. Paragraphs 11 to 17 of the order dated 2.7.1998 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Centra! Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal), which reflect the detailed consideration of the rival cases are reproduced below :-
“From the pleadings of the parties and the material on record, certain undisputed facts have emerged. Regular vacancies of the subject pertaining to the applicants are in existence. The applicants are eligible in terms of the statutory Rules and are performing the same duties, shouldering, the same responsibilities and discharging the functions as are being done by regular Lecturers. The only stand taken by the respondents to dislodge the claim of the applicants is that the applicants having accepted, with eyes open, the appointments on contractual basis on the terms and conditions of their appointment letters, cannot be permitted to agitate the same. It is not the stand of the respondents that posts have been advertised through UPSC and in case the applicants apply for the same they would be considered in accordance with the statutory Rules.
On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and the judgment rendered by the D.B, of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 18835 of 1997, a photo copy of which has been placed before us, we are of the view that the controversy is no longer res integra. Such type of contract and fixed term appointments on fixed salary have time and again been held to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution and the incumbents of the posts have been held entitled to continue in service till the posts in their respective subjects are filled in on regular basis and in accordance with the rules and they have also been held entitled to equal pay for equal work at par with regular employees from the date of their appointment/engagement. We do not find it necessary to repeat the reasoning adopted/referred to by the D.B. of the High Court in the case of Polu Ram (supra).
There are, however, a few facts in the other two connected OAs i.e. O.A. No. 807/CH/97 – Manjula Talwar v. U.T. Chandigarh and anr, and O.A. No.
1298/CH/96 – Harish Kumar and ors. v. Chandigarh Administration and ors. as highlighted by the respondents and which require consideration. One of the contentions of the respondents is that in the subject of Electronics there are sanctioned posts at Central Polytechnic, Sector 26, Chandigarh and as such the applicants cannot continue on these posts. However, the learned counsel for the applicants brought to our notice that as a matter of fact both these institutes are governed by separate Recruitment Rules notified on the same date, laying down the same eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions except that these rules have been called as Central Polytechnic Chandigarh (Group B Post) Recruitment Rules, 1995 and Govt. Polytechnic for Women Chandigarh (Group B post) Recruitment Rules, 1995. There are regular vacancies at Govt. Polytechnic for Women Sector 10, Chandigarh in the subject. However, there is no formal sanctioned posts in the Department of Electronics at Central Polytechnic, Sector 26, Chandigarh although since the year 1994 the regular postings are being made by the said Institute on year to year basis and sanction is also obtained from the competent authority and the students/candidates are being awarded regular diploma since 1994. Six posts of lecturers have been sanctioned on year to year contract basis since 1994. On perusal and examination of the records we do not find any force in the stand of the respondents that there is no sanctioned post and the applicants pertaining to this subject/department cannot be allowed to continue on that post. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the respondent-department has been engaging Lecturers on contractual basis even in this subject from Ist August, 1997 till 31st July, 1998. Such orders have been passed in respect of the applicants also without nave being any order to continue them till 31st July, 1998 fay this department and even more persons were engaged subsequent to the appointment of the applicants on the same terms upto 31st July, 1998. Some of the orders have been placed on record to show that on receipt of sanction, the incumbents were granted appointment till 31st July, 4998.
A perusal of order dated 4.11.97 (Annexure A/9) passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 807/CH/97 shows that Smt. Manjula Talwar, applicant was initially appointed up to 31st July, 1997 by order dt. 12.5.97 and vide order dt. 14.5.97 passed by this Tribunal. She was granted interim reliefs directing the panics to maintain status quo till 26.5.97, the next date of hearing and the said interim order continued to operate from time to time. However, vide order dated 4.9.97, the respondent department extended the period of engagement or Ms. Manjula Talwar upto 31.7.98 and this was done by the respondents on their own because this Tribunal had not extended the aforesaid interim direction till 31.7.98. Similar
order dated 21.11.97 (Annexure A/10) shows that one Jitender Singh was engaged as Lecturer on contract basis in the Department of Electronic and Communication at Central Polytechnic, Sector 26, Chandigarh upto 31.7.98, whereas order dated 6.2.1996 (Annexure A/11) shows that after Ms, Manjula Talwar was engaged as Lecturer another candidate Ms. Seema Gulati has been appointed as Lecturer in Electronics upto 31.7.98 by the respondents vide their order dated 6.2.98. The learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that neither Shri Jitender Singh nor Ms. Seema Gulati has approached this Tribunal for any such relief. If that is so, then the stand of the respondents that there was no need or that there was no post available, is totally falsified. Similar sanction for engagement of staff in Electronics and Communication (Engineering) on contract basis at Central Polytechnic, Sector 26, Chandigarh was issued for complete session 1996-97 by the respondents vide their order dated 19.8.96 (Annexure A/12) which shows that there was a sanction for six posts of Lecturers in Electronics and one post in Computer for the sessions 1996-97. Similar orders arc stated to have been issued by the respondent-department on year to year basis right from the year 1994. The case of the applicants is that all the incumbents who were similarly situated irrespective of the status of the post were offered similar appointments on year to year contractual basis and as such if the administration did not take any steps to get the approval or the sanction of the Department and the regular posts have not been sanctioned, the fault docs not lie with the applicants, particularly, when the regular diplomas are being awarded by the department to the students. It is also the stand of the applicants that the said Department of Electronics has neither been disapproved nor is likely to be closed down by the competent authority and if the department is closed down and no incumbent is required that the applicants serving in the said department cannot raise any grievance. However, if the respondent are continuing the said Department by obtaining the sanction which normally is issued after July each year and after due date, the respondents cannot be allowed to dislodge the claim of the applicants by taking the plea that there was no post and as such there was no need to continue the applicants. In such a case need exists. Only the status of the post on the basis of which incumbents are appointed may differ and even in such a situation principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and ors. reported in 1992(3) SLR 35, will come into play i.e. one ad-hoc cannot replace another adhoc. It is more so when the position of teaching profession is totally on different footings than those working or appointed in other departments. The applicants employed in the Department of Computer and Electronics, Central Polytechnic, Sector 26, Chandi-
garh are similarly situated so far as the reliefs granted to the other applicants are concerned. The observations of D.B. of Punjab & Haryana High Court and others (CWP 3411 of 1997) as referred in the Polu Ram and anr, (supra) on this point are reproduced as under :-
“….The clement of continuity of teacher-taught relation is extremely important. Long association between the teachers and the students not only inculcate a sense of discipline in the institution but also enhances the quality of education. By engaging teachers for 89 days period and that too on contract basis, the government has introduced an element of uncertainty in the minds of those who are given such appointment and it is quite reasonable to take the view that such appointees cannot serve the purpose of providing effective education to the students. This may ultimately affect the future generation of the country and it may not be possible to repair the damage caused to the system of education.
The respondents further urged that some of the applicants in OA 1298/VCH/96 have left the service. So far as such applicants who have left the service are concerned, they cannot get !he relief of continuity in service except that they shall be entitled to the relief of equal pay for equal work for the period, they were appointed on alleged contract basis till they left service. The learned counsel for the respondents also place reliance upon the judgment in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Admn. v. Anita Sood relating to teaching Asstt. of Punjab Engineering College in which the terms and conditions of the appointment of applicants therein were upheld by the Apex Court. With all respect, this judgment is not applicable to facts and circumstances of the present case, for the simple reason that the incumbents in the said case were not appointed as Lecturers, but they were claiming the same emoluments in terms of pay and allowances as paid to the Lecturers and they were not eligible for the post of lecturers and their duty-hours were also under cloud.
In the light of that we have observed above, we allow the three OAs and hold that the conditions incorporated in the appointment letters of the applicants limiting their appointments upto 31st July, 98 are illegal, unconstitutional and are accordingly struck down as such. Likewise, the condition of their being paid consolidated salary is also declared ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Respondents are accordingly directed to allow the applicants to continue in service till the availability of the regularly selected candidates appointed in terms of statutory rules. However, it is made clear that the services of the applicants can be terminated/discontinued on the ground of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. The respondents can also dispense with the services of the applicants in accordance with the rules on the principle of last come first go if the need is not
there. The aforesaid directions will relate to the department/subject where sanctioned posts are available. However, the departments like Communication and Electronics where the respondents allege that no regular sanctioned posts are available, the incumbents appointed in the said departments will be allowed to continue till the need exist and they will be paid the same pay and allowances as have been directed to be paid to the incumbents in the departments where there are sanctioned posts. They will also be not replaced by similarly placed persons. As and when regular posts are sanctioned, these will also be filled in accordance with the rules and in case the applicants apply for such posts, they will be considered for the same as per their eligibility and suitability. The respondents are also directed to pay the applicants salary in the regular pay scale from the date of their appointment/engagement. However, the applicants who have left the service would be paid the salary in the regular pay scale from the date of their appointment/engagement till they remained in service.
Before parting we also direct the respondents to refer all the existing vacancies in all the Departments in both the Institutes i.e. Central Ploytechinic, Sector 26, Chandigarh and Govt. Polytechnic for Women, Sector 10, Chandigarh to O.P.S.C. for being filled up on regular basis in terms of the Recruitment Rules within a period of six months in cases where no such reference has been made so far. We are issuing these directions in the background that we have noticed that the respondent-administration is taking the category of the applicants in a very casual manner and this attitude is definitely neither in the interest of the students nor in the inlerest of the teachers/incumbents. If the regular posts are available these are to be filled in only in accordance with the rules. We have observed more than once that prompt action should be taken to fill up the existing vacancies in accordance with the rules with a view to avoid an element of uncertainty in the services career of the teachers and also to avoid the adverse effect on the students. We have issued such directions a number of times including the one issued by this Tribunal in OA No. 394/CH/96-Salinder Jit Kaur v. U.T. Chandigarh Administration and others and 12 other cases relating to Art & Science Colleges to the effect that the respondent department shall take immediate steps to fill in the posts in accordance with the rules preferably within a period of six months or till the posts are filled on regular basis. This will avoid unnecessary litigation and extra burden on State exchequer and the teachers who are engaged in this profession will be able to devote their full time whole heartedly to their job. The present applicants will not be dislodged by other ad hoc or contractual appointees and would be replaced only by those appointed on regular basis. No order as to costs.”
6. Shri Rajan Gupta argued that the impugned order
should be declared as vitiated by an error of law because the Tribunal has failed to consider the true nature of the engagement of the petitioners and wrongly applied the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” and the law laid down by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 18835 of 1997 – Polu Ram and another v. Stale of Haryana and others, decided on 17.4.1998. Learned counsel submitted that even though the nature of duties performed by the non-official respondents may be quantitatively similar to those performed by regular appointed Lecturers, there is a qualitative difference in their work and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have give a direction for payment of salary in the regular time scale to the non-official respondents.
7. Sarv Shri Surya Kant and Sanjiv Kaushik argued that the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because it is entirely based on the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court. Learned counsel laid emphasis on the fact that since the date of their appointment, the non-official respondents have been continuously working as lecturers in the Government Polytechnics and the duties performed by them are similar to those performed by regular appointees and argued that the respondents cannot discriminate them in the matter of payment of salary in the regular time scale.
8. Before adverting to the respective arguments, we consider, it necessary to observe that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. A writ can also be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or the Tribunal acts illegally or improperly i.e. it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted by it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate one. This necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court of Tribunal can be corrected only if it is shown that in recording the said finding the Court or the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence and the same has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, a finding of fact based on no evidence would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.
9. In the light of the above noted proposition, we may now consider whether the impugned order is vitiated by an error of law warranting interference by this Court. In this context, it is necessary to observe that the petitioners have not placed any material on the record of the writ petitions to controvert the following
facts:
(a) that the non-official respondents possess the qualifications prescribed under the Central Polytechnic, Chandigarh (Group B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 and Government Polytechnic for Women (Group B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 for appointment as Lecturer;
(b) that there are regular vacancies in Government Polytechnic for women, Sector 10, Chandigarh;
(c) that the non-official respondents were appointed as Lecturers on contract basis between 1995 and 1997 after considering the candidature of all those who fell in the zone of consideration and the tenure of their contractual engagement is being extended from time of time :
(d) that the duties performed by the non-official respondents are quantitatively similar to those performed by regular appointees. The petitioners had controverted the non-official respondents claim for payment of salary in the regular, time scale mainly on the ground that there is a qualitative difference in the nature of their duties vis-a-vis those performed by regular appointees, but they did not produce any material before the Tribunal to substantiate this assertion. Even before this Court, no such material has been produced. During the course of arguments, we asked Shri Rajan Gupta to show the difference between the duties of non-official respondents and regular appointees, but the learned counsel could not point out any such difference. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this issue.
10. The other ground on which the petitioner have challenged the Tribunal’s order is that the modes of recruitment of regular Lecturers and contract appointees are different and, therefore, the employees of the latter category are not entitled to get the benefit of doctrine of equal pay for equal work. In our opinion, the mode and manner of recruitment may have bearing on the right of the employees to hold the post and their conditions of service, like confirmation, seniority, promotion, but the same is determinative of their right to be paid salary in a particular pay scale and in any case, this has no relevance in the context of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law.
Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed.
11. Petitions dismissed.