IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 3918/2000
Reserved on: July 20, 2011
Decision on: August 4, 2011
MADHUP NATH JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rekha Palli with
Ms. Punam Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advocates.
versus
RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravinder Dayal, Advocate for R-5.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No
JUDGMENT
04.08.2011
1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 10th May 2000 issued by the Rashtriya
Sanskrit Sansthan, Respondent No. 1, reverting him from the post of Lecturer in
History to the post of Post Graduate Teacher („PGT‟) (History) in Respondent No. 3
Rani Padmavati Tara Yogatantra Mahavidyalaya. The Petitioner also challenges the
consequential order dated 3rd July, 2000 issued by Respondent No. 3 stating that since
no direction had been issued by Respondent No. 1, no salary would be paid to the
Petitioner in the reverted post.
2. Respondent No. 1 is under the administrative control of the Union of India through
the Ministry of Human Resources Development („HRD Ministry‟) Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 3 is an institution in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh affiliated to
W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000 Page 1 of 5
Respondent No. 1 and is an autonomous body functioning under the administrative
and financial control of Respondent No. 1.
3. The Petitioner states that he was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher („TGT‟)
on 4th August, 1992 by the Managing Committee („MC‟) of Respondent No. 3 after
observing the due formalities. The Petitioner states that at the time of his appointment
as a TGT, he had a BA degree. Subsequently he qualified for the MA degree securing
more than 55% marks. According to the Petitioner he was promoted to the post of
PGT after passing through various tests and interviews. Although in para „E‟ of the
writ petition the Petitioner has stated that he was promoted to the post of “PGT in the
Department of History as lecturer on 18th January 1996”, he has subsequently clarified
in response to an application filed by the Respondents that this was a typographical
error. The Petitioner has clarified that his claim is that he was promoted to the post of
PGT on 18th January, 1996.
4. It is the Petitioner’s case that on 17th November 1998, Respondent No. 1 issued an
office order relating to the recognition of Respondent No. 3 and about the grant of
financial assistance to institutions recognized by Respondent No. 1. In the said office
order the name of the Petitioner finds place at serial number 8 under the caption
teaching staff in which he is shown as a lecturer. The Petitioner claims that when an
Expert Committee („EC‟) constituted by Respondent No.1 visited Respondent No. 3
on 14th April 1997, it examined the relevant records of appointments of teaching and
non-teaching staff. The EC came to the conclusion that there were irregularities and
therefore decided to screen, meticulously and closely, performance of the teaching
staff. It is claimed by the Petitioner that the EC found that Respondent No. 5 was not
qualified for the post of lecturer in history. He claims that the EC found the Petitioner
to be suitable for the post of lecturer and made a recommendation in that behalf.
5. The Petitioner states that on 2nd December, 1998 a letter was issued appointing the
Petitioner as a lecturer in history on probation with effect from 29th October 1998 for a
period of two years. A second review committee met on 24th September 1999 and
reviewed the appointments made to both teaching and non-teaching staff in
Respondent No.3. This committee recommended that Respondent No. 5 be appointed
as lecturer in history, that the Petitioner be reverted to the post of PGT, and that one
W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000 Page 2 of 5
post of PGT in history be created for him. This led to the impugned orders being
passed.
6. Aggrieved by the decision of the EC not to recommend his appointment as lecturer,
Respondent No. 5 approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing W. P. (C) No.
43882 of 1998. Respondent No. 3 contested this writ petition and filed an affidavit
stating that Respondent No. 5 in fact had much less marks in his post graduate degree
in comparison to the Petitioner and therefore, was found unsuitable for the post of
lecturer in history. However, the said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn and
Respondent No. 5 was appointed as lecturer in history. The case of the Petitioner is
that his reversion to a non-existent post of PGT was stigmatic and punitive, and in any
event violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, the Petitioner‟s salary has
also not been paid by Respondent No. 1.
7. Respondent No. 5 in his reply to the present writ petition has pointed out that he
was appointed initially as a lecturer in history on ad hoc basis in Respondent No. 3
with effect from 4th August 1992. At the time of such appointment he had a
postgraduate degree in history. He had passed the B. Ed. examination in 1992. He also
had an M. Phil. degree. He had enrolled for a Ph.D. from the Banaras Hindu
University and a provisional Ph.D. degree was awarded to him on 4th December 2000.
Respondent No. 5 states that in 1993 the requisite qualifications for being appointed as
a lecturer was an MA in 2nd class in the subject concerned, a B. Ed. degree and at least
3 years‟ teaching experience. He states that by the time the EC was constituted by
Respondent No. 1 visited Respondent No. 3 on 14th April 1997 Respondent No. 5 had
4 years and 8 months‟ teaching experience as lecturer in history. At the time when
Respondent No. 5 joined as lecturer in history the Petitioner only had a BA degree and
was appointed, therefore, only as a TGT. He did not possess even a B. Ed. degree. It is
pointed out that the Petitioner qualified in MA in 1993 with 58.5% marks but was
wrongly promoted from TGT to PGT without the approval of a duly constituted expert
committee. When the second expert committee visited the college it was realised that
the Petitioner was not even qualified to be appointed as a TGT in history. Respondent
No. 5 further states that as per the norms of the University Grants Commission
(„UGC‟) he is fully qualified as he had in 1990 itself a master‟s degree in History with
W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000 Page 3 of 5
52.5%. This was above the requirement of 50% as mentioned in the UGC Guidelines.
On the other hand, the Petitioner did not fulfill the UGC norms.
8. The stand of Respondent No. 5 has been fully supported by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
It is contended that apart from the fact that the Petitioner was not qualified to be
appointed to the post of even a TGT as he did not have a B. Ed. degree, his promotion
to the post of PGT was illegal. The inclusion of the Petitioner‟s name in the circular
dated 17th November, 1998 showing him to be a lecturer in history is stated to be a
mistake. Further, the letter appointing him as lecturer dated 2nd December 1998 made
it clear that he was to be on probation for a period of two years. Consequently the
Petitioner could not claim any right to hold the post.
9. The stand of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that Respondent No. 3 has to abide by the
norms laid down by Respondent No. 1. This includes strict application of the UGC
norms in the matter of recruitment of teaching staff. It is reiterated that the Petitioner
was not qualified to hold the post of PGT in history as he did not possess the B. Ed.
degree.
10. The principal issue to be decided in the present case is whether the reversion of the
Petitioner from the post of lecturer in history to a PGT in history is justified in law?
The comparative merits of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 for being appointed as
lecturers in history is an incidental issue.
11. The Petitioner states that he has a postgraduate degree in history with 58.5%
marks. It is not in dispute that for appointment as a lecturer in history a candidate
should possess a second class postgraduate degree, i.e., MA, a B. Ed. degree and at
least three years‟ teaching experience. It is further not in dispute that the UGC norms
required the candidate to have a masters degree in the relevant subject with at least
55% marks or its equivalent grade. This according to Respondent No.5 is relaxable up
to 50%. However, as further clarified by the Respondents 1 to 4 the norms stipulated
for the 95% grant-in-aid required the candidate to have a B. Ed and a Ph.D. degree or
to have qualified the NET. Respondent No.5 had a Ph.D at the time of his appointment
as ad hoc lecturer. However the Petitioner did not possess a B. Ed. on the date that he
was promoted as a PGT in the Department of History. He was not a Ph.D at the time
W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000 Page 4 of 5
of his appointment as Lecturer. The Petitioner has not been able to deny that
Respondent No. 5 possessed a higher qualification. Apart from an M.A. and a B. Ed.
degree, he also had an M. Phil. and 4 years and 8 months of teaching experience. In
the circumstances, the stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 about the Petitioner
having been promoted as a PGT in History by mistake and further not being qualified
to be appointed as a lecturer in history appears to be justified. In terms of seniority
Respondent No. 5 was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in 1992 itself and on a regular
basis with effect from 1993, whereas the Petitioner was only appointed as a TGT in
1992 for which again he was not qualified as he did not possess a B. Ed. degree. In the
circumstances the decision of Respondent No. 3 to not continue the Petitioner in the
post of lecturer history cannot be held to be illegal.
12. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on 17th April 2001 by Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 is that since the Petitioner was not qualified he was not fit to be retained.
However, the impugned order does revert the Petitioner to the post of PGT in history.
During the course of submissions it was stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the Petitioner has been paid the salary as TGT from 12th January 2007 onwards. A
copy of a letter dated 12th January 2007 addressed by the Principal of Respondent No.
3 to the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner was, pursuant to a letter dated 18th
December 2006 of Respondent No. 1 and the decision dated 16th December 2006 of
the Managing Committee of Respondent No. 3, appointed as PGT History on
temporary basis for a period of two years. However, the said letter asks the Petitioner
to withdraw the present petition. Considering that the impugned order already reverted
the Petitioner to the post of PGT History with effect from 10th July 2000, the further
decision ten years later to appoint him to the said post on temporary basis appears to
be intriguing. The Petitioner ought to be paid the salary as PGT History for the entire
period he has worked on the said post. Accordingly it is directed that the Petitioner
should within a period of eight weeks be paid by the Respondents his salary as PGT
History for the entire period that he has served on the said post after adjusting the
amount already paid to him. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
AUGUST 04, 2011
dp
W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000 Page 5 of 5