1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1999
Petitioners : 1) Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar, aged about
37 years, occ: service, resident of c/o Govt
Polytechnic College, Nagpur
2) Anil Wamanrao Wankhede, aged about 37
years, occ: service, resident of c/o Govt.
Polytechnic College, Nagpur
3) Ravindra Dyaneshwarrao Warhokar, aged
about 43 years, resident of c/o Government
Polytechnic College, Yavatmal
4) Abdul Mujeeb Khan, aged about 42 years,
occ: service, resident of c/o Government
Polytechnic College, Amravati
5) Sunil Gangadhar Deshpande, aged about
42 years, occ: service, resident of Nagpur
versus
Respondents : 1) State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Technical & Higher Education,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
2
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) Director, Technical Education, MS, Mumbai
3) All India Council for Technical Education,
New Delhi
4) Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Mumbai
5) Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Nagpur Bench, nagpur
Mr H.D. Dangre, Advocate for petitioners
Mr A. Parihar, AGP for respondents no. 1,2,4 and 5
Ms Usha Tanna, Advocate for respondent no. 3
Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 28/29th September 2011
Oral Judgment (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J)
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.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
3
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.
2. Mr Dangre while advancing the cause of petitioner has
contended that only defence before the Tribunal raised by
respondents no. 1 and 2 was that post of Workshop Superintendent
is not a teaching post. He points out that norms issued by
respondent no. 3 All India Council for Technical Education
constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act,
1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Act") were not in
dispute and its binding effect was shown by respondent no. 3 even
before the Tribunal. He has invited attention to those norms as in
the year 1990 to urge that by its perusal, there is no scope for doubt
that post of Workshop Superintendent has been treated as equivalent
to the post of Head of the Department or then of Senior Lecturer
(Selection grade) and pay-scale for them is Rs. 3700-5700. He has
also pointed out the relevant clauses to substantiate his contention
and to show that Workshop Superintendent has been placed in the
cadre of Head of the Department. Job description of a Lecturer and
of Workshop Superintendent is also read out for this purpose.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
4
Contention is that this material on record has not been looked into
by respondent no. 5 Tribunal.
3. Without prejudice to this contention and in the
alternative, learned counsel has, presuming that Workshop
Superintendent cannot be treated as a teaching post, invited
attention to the communication dated 20th September 1989 issued
by AICTE to urge that there recommendation on the point of
revision of pay-scale appears and for Head of the Department the
pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700 has been proposed. Learned counsel
states tat recommendations with AICTE are applicable even to
petitioners. The decision of State Government dated 26th May 1992
issued in the light of this communication is also relied upon and it is
pointed out that those revised scales have come into force from 1st
January 1986. Attention is invited to later resolution dated 22nd
November 1993 which modifies this resolution and exempts them
from acquiring revised educational qualification. The judgment of
Honourable Apex Court in State of Bihar and ors v. Bihar State
Workshop Supdt Federation and ors reported at 1993 Supp (2) SCC
368 is pressed into service to show that there the post of Workshop
Superintendent is already held to be a teaching post by Honourable
Apex Court. Thus, in the light of this judgment and above-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
5
mentioned decision/resolution, contention is that petitioners are
entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700.
4. In the light of this material, order of the Tribunal dated
5.1.1999 is also read out and it is contended that the Judgment of
Honourable Apex Court has not been appreciated at all. It is further
contended that the fact that petitioners were duly qualified and,
therefore, were selected and have been appointed as Workshop
Superintendent prior to 20th September 1989 or its impact in present
matter is totally lost sight of by the Tribunal. It is contended that
letters of AICTE mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of its
order were, therefore, not relevant at all. Reliance is also placed on
judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of T.N. & anr v.
Adhiyaman Educational and ors reported at (1995) 4 SCC 104 to
show that AICTE is the only authorised and competent body to
decide not only qualification but also pay structure and the State
Government cannot avoid its responsibility to implement the norms
prescribed by it. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to
preamble of 1987 Act and mandatory provision Section 10 thereof
with contention that the subjects mentioned in clause IV of Section
10 are only illustrative. It is contended that it is the exclusive
privilege of AICTE to take all steps for ensuring coordination and
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
6
integrated development of technical education and norms fixed by it,
therefore, deserve primacy. The provisions in Section 22 conferring
rule-making power, Section 23 authorises AICTE to frame
Regulations and requirement in Section 24 to lay rules and
regulations before the Parliament, are also pressed into service for
said purpose.
5. Ms Usha Tanna, learned counsel respondent no. 3 has
urged that Workshop Superintendent is not Head of the Department,
but he is in-charge of Workshop. The norms prescribed by AICTE are
not binding upon the State Government and attention is invited to
the fact that for post of Head of the Department more superior
qualifications are prescribed. He points out that only petitioner no.
1 was possessing those qualifications at the relevant time. In this
backdrop, attention is invited to Norms and Standards for
Polytechnics, particularly clause 6.2.4 which shows that post of
Workshop Superintendent is placed in the cadre of Head of the
Department with stand that it is not equivalence.
6. Mr Parihar, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for other respondents has supported the order of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He contends that post of
Workshop Superintendent is falling in Maharashtra Educational
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
7
Service, Class-I (junior cadre) while post of Head of the Department
is in superior cadre. He points out that when MPSC advertised the
post, this position was apparent and it also stipulated that Workshop
Superintendent had the prospects of promotion to the post of Head
of the Department. Pay-scale of Rs. 2200-2700 was also indicated
in the advertisement. He has invited attention to the norms and
standard as issued by respond AICTE in August 1990 to urge that
those norms are only guidelines. Table-10 dealing with staff salaries
is stated to be based on hypothetical pay-scales only for the
purposes of cost estimation. It is pointed out that in so far as
teaching cadre is concerned, post of Lecturer is an entry post and
post of Senior Lecturer in pay-scale of Rs. 3000-5000 is next superior
post. Post of Head of Department/Senior Lecturer (Selection
Grade)/Workshop Superintendent/Training and Placement Officer
are still higher posts and all these posts are given pay-scale of Rs.
3700-5700. He states that thus a person with requisite qualification
and recruited in pay-scale commencing from Rs. 2200 cannot jump
hierarchy and become Head. He argues that higher qualifications
prescribed in clause 6.1.11 of said norms clearly show that the
petitioners cannot compare themselves with Head of Department.
The attention is invited to the Government Resolution dated 26th
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
8
May 1992 which has been passed after communication dated 20th
September 1989 from the AICTE to demonstrate that the State
Government had decided to implement the Scheme as envisaged by
the AICTE with some modification in scales of pay and subject to
terms and conditions of service as described therein. The coverage is
to teacher who fulfills required qualification laid down by the AICTE.
Appendix-I along with this resolution is again pressed into service to
show how post of Lecturer in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-3700 is
lowest post or entry post. Next higher post available is of Lecturer
(Senior Scale) and thereafter Lecturer (Senior Grade) and then at sr.
no. 4 post of Head of Department in pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5300.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader in this backdrop contends
that effort of petitioners to compare themselves with the post of
Head of Department in present facts is, therefore, misconceived. He
points out that qualifications as prescribed were held only by
petitioner no. 1 and not by others. According to him, having applied
in response to such an advertisement and then worked accordingly,
challenge of such nature raised belatedly is unsustainable and
deserves to be rejected. He points out that AICTE is not providing
any financial assistance and hence, grant of pay-scale is a policy
decision completely in domain of the State Government.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
9
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced All
India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions
and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010 issued under
Notification dated 5th March 2010. These Regulations referred to as
"2010 Regulations" have come into force on 5th March 2010 and
extend pay-scale of Lecturer to Workshop Superintendent and not
the pay-scale of Head of the Department. Provisions of Clause 1/1.3
(a) and Faculty Norms prescribing qualifications are pressed into
service. To substantiate this contention, orders dated 8th February
1996 and 20th January 1992 issued to one Vijay Mankar and Ajay
Shah and others are also shown to this Court to demonstrate that
the post of Head of the Department is superior to the post of
Workshop Superintendent. Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in
State of Bihar and ors v. Bihar State Workshop Supdt Federation and
ors (supra) is sought to be distinguished by pointing out that there
pay-scale demanded was of a Lecturer and as per UGC
recommendations.
8. Mr Dangre in reply has contended that stand of
respondent no. 3 before this Court is contrary to its stand before the
Tribunal. He contends that similar grievance was made before
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
10
Honourable Apex Court about role of respondent no. 3 in State of
Bihar and ors v. Bihar State Workshop Supdt Federation and ors
(supra). He submits that now petitioners no. 2 and 5 have both
acquired post-graduate qualification and petitioner no. 1 is has a
doctorate. According to him, therefore, even if the educational
qualifications are required to be looked into, petitioners no. 1,2 and
5 satisfy the said requirement. He has invited attention to
communication dated 11th December 1998 sent by AICTE to
respondents no. 1 and 2 to show that there it has been specifically
communicated to respondents that Training and Placement Officer
and Workshop Superintendents are equal in cadre to Head of the
Department and, therefore, post of Workshop Superintendent is post
of Head of the Department. In this backdrop, observations in
paragraph 40 in the judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of
T.N. & anr v. Adhiyaman Educational and ors (supra) are relied
upon along with relevant provisions of 1987 Act to urge that norms
fixed by AICTE must be implemented by respondent no. 1.
9. Inviting attention to booklet issued by respondent no. 3
from which Annexure-E has been produced before this Court,
learned counsel contends that word "estimation" used therein is
only because of number of students presumed. He points out that
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
11
such number of students is taken to be 180 and accordingly, the
number of posts required in various cadres is worked out and on that
basis cost estimation has been arrived at. According to him, if
number of students increases or decreases, it will result only in
proportional reduction in number of teaching and non-teaching
posts, but it will not affect the pay-scale as prescribed therein.
10. By placing reliance upon the fact that Workshop
Superintendent and Training & Placement Officer are already
equated with Head of the Department by Statute, he seeks to rely
upon copy of order dated 29th July 1997 to urge that Training &
Placement Officers are duly recognized as Head of the department.
He contends that thus said recommendation of respondent no. 3 has
been implemented only in relation to Training & Placement Officers
and has been withheld in case of cadre of petitioners. This,
according to him, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
11. Regulations issued on 5th March 2010 and produced by
learned Assistant Government Pleader are sought to be used in
favour of petitioners by stating that in it the post of Workshop
Superintendent is recognized as teaching post. Similarly, the
entitlement or power of respondent no. 3 to prescribe even pay-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:20 :::
12
scales is duly recognized in it. Thus, stand of respondent State
Government before Tribunal that Workshop Superintendent is not a
teaching post is defeated by this document. Similarly, finding of
Tribunal that Section 10 of 1987 Act does not enable respondent no.
3 AICTE to prescribe pay-scales is also rendered infructuous.
12. Without prejudice to this contention, learned counsel
states that the settled service conditions of the petitioners cannot be
disturbed by these subsequent Regulations which have come into
force on or after 5th March 2010. Right to receive pay-scale of Head
of the Department has accrued to petitioners before they
approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in 1997 and hence
Regulations of 2010 can be given only prospective effect. Judgment
of Honourable Apex Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa & ors v.
Rasananda Das reported at (2003) 10 SCC 297 is pressed into
service to show that there cannot be retrospective change of pay-
scale prejudicial to the employees. Similarly, judgment of
Honourable Apex Court in D.P. Sharma & ors v. Union of India and
anr reported at 1989 Supp (1) SCC 244 is also pressed into service
with contention that rule for determination of seniority and
promotion cannot be changed to the disadvantage of employee
retrospectively. Learned counsel, therefore, reiterated that in the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
13
light of norms issued by AICTE, post of Workshop Superintendent
must be treated as equivalent to post of Head of the Department and
in view of judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of Bihar &
ors v. Bihar State Workshop and ors (supra), challenge in the
petition needs to be allowed.
13. Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Grid Corporation
& ors v. Rasananda Das (supra) shows that there Honourable Apex
Court has held that conditions of service cannot be altered to the
disadvantage of employees by reducing their pay-scales or
withdrawing any service benefits. Facts
show that higher pay-scale
was granted by appellant Corporation to the employees employed
prior to 1960 at par with other employees by State Government
without any reservation. Such employees were entitled to continue
in service till 60 years of age though for employees recruited after
1.4.1960 age of retirement was 58 years. Effort was made to reduce
pay-scale for such pre-1.4.1960 employees for the service rendered
by them between 58 years and 60 years. Honourable Apex Court
has found that such an exercise was violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as there could not have been two types of pay-
scales, one for the purpose of continuing in service upto the age of
58 years and later for continuing after the age of 58 years till age of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
14
60 years. The observations are in the backdrop of a right to receive
pension and Honourable Apex Court has noted that the pension is
not a bounty, but hard-earned benefit. Thus, said employee while
continuing upto 58 years of age, was entitled to protection and a
higher pay-scale. However, when he was rendering service beyond
58 years and till 60 years, his pay-scale was getting reduced. This
affected his last pay and, therefore, pension. In D. P. Sharma & ors v.
Union of India and anr (supra), Honourable Apex Court has found
that rule providing that persons substantively appointed to a grade
shall rank senior to those holding officiating appointment in a grade
could not have retrospective effect. It could not impair the existing
rights of officials who were appointed long prior to the Rules came
into force. Honourable Apex Court noticed that office memoranda
relied upon by learned single Judge of the High Court and perused
by it clearly expected only length of service to be a guiding principle
for arranging inter-se seniority of officials. Approach of Division
Bench was, therefore, found not correct.
14. Here the violation of Article 14 and above case law is
pressed into service by pointing out the orders issued by the State
Government on 29th July 1997 and thereafter It appears that earlier
State Government had approved filling up of a vacancy in the post of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
15
Head of the Department by promotion. However, some posts though
approved were from quota to be filled in by nomination and hence,
ad-hoc promotions were made against it. Issue of continuing such
ad-hoc promotees further by giving them break of one day was
under consideration of the State Government. Accordingly by giving
such break, promotions have been continued. The persons whose
names appear at sr. nos. 5 and 6 in said order appear to be Training
& Placement Officers. Their qualifications are not before us and
learned Assistant Government Pleader is also not in a position to
meet this document as it has been produced today at the eleventh
hour. There is no supporting affidavit and application. Narration
above clearly shows that promotions were only on ad-hoc basis. Mr
Dangre at this stage states that compilation given by him contained
other orders also which show transfer of Training & Placement
Officers as Heads of the Department and vice-versa. The question
sought to be raised on the basis of these orders necessitates some
factual substratum. In absence thereof, we are not in a position to
accept the contension of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
15. Perusal of 2010 Regulations produced by the Assistant
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
16
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”
appears. It is, therefore, obvious that these 2010 Regulations accept
Workshop Superintendent as teacher. In clause (a) after this
heading, various pay-scales are prescribed from clause (i) to (xvi)
and thereafter heading “Workshop Superintendent” appears.
Thereafter Regulations mention that “Workshop Superintendent is
treated at par with Lecturer and is to be considered for upward
mobility similar to that of Lecturers”. At the end of these
Regulations, Faculty Norms are mentioned. Faculty Norms stipulate
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
17
minimum qualifications and experience for appointment of teaching
posts in Diploma Level Technical Institutions. First post appearing
therein is of Lecturer/Workshop Superintendent in
Engineering/Technology. Qualifications prescribed therefor are
Bachelor’s degree in Engineering/Technology in the relevant branch
with First Class or equivalent. If the candidate is possessing Master’s
degree in Engineering/Technology, first class or equivalent is
required at Bachelor’s or Master’s level. Second post is of Head of
Department and qualification prescribed is, Bachelor’s and Master’s
degree of appropriate branch in Engineering/Technology with First
Class or equivalent either at Bachelor’s or Master’s level with
minimum of 10 years relevant experience in
teaching/research/industry. Alternate qualification prescribed is,
Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree of appropriate branch in
Engineering/Technology with First Class or equivalent either at
Bachelor’s or Master’s level and Ph. D. or equivalent in appropriate
discipline in Engineering/Technology with minimum of 5 years
relevant experience in teaching/research/industry. It is, therefore,
obvious that because of doctorate, the candidate is eligible even if
he has five years of relevant experience.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
18
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011.
16. Having noted the qualifications for the post of Workshop
Superintendent and Head of Department in 2010 regulations, it is
appropriate to refer to the qualifications prevalent when the
petitioners were recruited. The advertisement by Respondent No. 4
published on 22.09.1988, reveals that the Educational qualification
contemplated was Second Class Degree in Bachelor of Engineering
or Master’s Degree in Engineering or then Diploma in Second Class
in Engineering and passing of A & B parts of A.M.I.E. with 3 years
experience. The pay-scale then stipulated is Rs.680-1250. The
petitioners possessed this qualification and were accordingly
appointed. Petitioner No. 1 was holding a Post Graduate
qualification. The Circular dated 26.05.1992 issued by the State
Government on division of pay-scales shows post of Lecturers in two
pay-scales. One post is in pay-scale of Rs.600-950 and another in
the pay-scale of Rs.680-1250. The pay-scale of Rs.680-1250 and Rs.
600-950 are revised on 01.01.1986 to Rs.2250-3700. The pay-scale
of Workshop Superintendent does not figure in Appendix 1 with this
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
19
Government Resolution. This revision is in accordance with the
communication dated 20.09.1989 issued by the Principal Secretary
of Respondent No. 3. That communication recommends pay-scale of
Rs.700-1300 for the post of Lecturer. For Senior Lecturers, A.I.C.T.E.
had noticed that there were no uniform scales and had
recommended new scale of Rs.3000-5000. For Heads of Department
or Lecturer Selection Grade, pay-scale of Rs.1100-1600 is shown by
A.I.C.T.E. with remarks that there were no uniform pay-scales. The
proposed new scales by A.I.C.T.E. was Rs.3700-5300. The State
Government in above mentioned Appendix I has shown revised pay-
scales of Rs.3000-4500 to Lecturers (Senior Grade) and Rs.
3700-5300 to Lecturers (Selection Grade). For Heads of
Department, State Government has shown existing pay-scale of Rs.
1000-1500 and revised pay-scale from 01.01.1986 as recommended
by A.I.C.T.E. i.e. Rs.3700-5300. The petitioners were recruited in the
pay-scale of Rs.680-1250 and that pay-scale has been revised to Rs.
2200-3700 by State Government in the case of Lecturers. The
communication dated 20.12.1997 sent by Desk Officer to the
Director of Technical Education records that Workshop
Superintendents were also working in the pay-scale of Rs.
2200-3700. Thus, from 01.01.1986, pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 has
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
20
been extended to the petitioners. This, therefore, shows that after
said pay-scale was extended to the petitioners from 01.01.1986,
there was an intervening pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 and then Rs.
3700-5300. The petitioners claimed this pay-scale of Rs.3700-5300
applicable to the Lecturers (Senior Grade) or Heads of Department,
thereby stepping over pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 applicable to
Lecturers (Senior Grade)and those qualifications.
17.
The A.I.C.T.E. has prescribed qualifications also along
with its communication dated 20.09.1989. Those qualifications for
Lecturers are First Class Bachelor Degree or then M.Sc. First class,
qualifying in All India Examination and selection through prescribed
selection procedure. For Senior Lecturers, though qualifications
were same, five years experience as Lecturer was held essential. M.
Tech. degree or Ph.D. degree was also held sufficient. Insofar as
Head of Department is concerned, First class Master’s degree or
Ph.D. degree is held essential. Similarly, five years experience in
teaching is also essential. There recommendations nowhere
expressly make reference to the post of Workshop Superintendent.
State Government has on 26.05.1992 while implementing these
recommendations, decided to implement the same with some
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
21
modifications in the scales of pay. The revised pay-scales are held
applicable to teachers who fulfilled required qualifications laid down
by A.I.C.T.E. Clause 8 of that Scheme points out details of the
qualifications as also experience required as given in Appendix V.
Clause 9 expressly mentions that candidates fulfilling minimum
qualifications prescribed for the posts of Teachers would be eligible
for grant of revised pay-scales.
18.
On 22.11.1993 State Government has modified these
requirements and noted that its resolution would be applicable to
existing technical staff such as Principal, Heads of Department,
Selection Grade/ Senior Lecturers/ Lecturers who were appointed by
Competent Authority prior to 20.09.1989 by exempting them from
acquiring revised educational qualifications.
19. The issue of qualifications need not be gone into in more
details by us. The petitioners have been given revised salary in the
pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 from 01.01.1986. It is not the case of the
petitioners that at the time of their recruitment as Workshop
Superintendent, they were holding qualifications necessary for
appointment as Heads of Department. The Norms and Standards for
Polytechnics (Diploma Programmes) issued by All India Council for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
22
Technical Education on August 1990 nowhere carry reference to any
statutory provision under which the same have been formulated.
The perusal thereof reveals that in clause 6.1.5, categories included
in staff pattern are mentioned. Principal and Teaching staff has been
shown as Category I and Workshop staff has been shown as Category
II. Clause 6.1.6 then shows Teaching staff cadre. The lowest post in
hierarchy is shown as that of Lecturer with next higher post as
Senior Lecturer. Head of Department/ Senior Lecturer (Selection
Grade) is placed above him and at the top appears the post of
Principal. Thereafter there is a note which reads “the Training and
Placement Officer and Workshop Superintendent will be equal in
cadre to Head of Department”. These, norms also prescribe essential
qualifications for Head of Department. These qualifications are not
different than what we have noted while making reference to
communication dated 20.09.1989 issued by A.I.C.T.E. Similar
qualifications also figure for Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. Specific
qualifications for the post of Workshop Superintendent are not
separately mentioned anywhere. These norms also show the duties
and responsibilities of Teachers of Polytechnics.
20. Our attention has been invited to clause 6.2.3 which
deals with Workshop staff. The categories of workshop staff are
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
23
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.
The perusal of Writ Petition particularly para 8 shows that it is filed
as part and parcel of Table X. Table X is part of earlier Annexure i.e.
Annexure E which is nothing but Norms and Standards of
Polytechnics.
21. Perusal of original book containing Norms and Standards
of Polytechnics shows that said Annexure does not form part of Table
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
24
X also. In petition, it is mentioned that in Table X, post of Workshop
Superintendent is conferred with pay-scale of Rs.3700-5700. The
perusal of Table X which deals with staff salaries reveals that it is at
page No. 57 of Norms and post of Workshop Superintendent is
shown at Sr. No. 2 along with the post of Head of Department,
Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade), Workshop Superintendent,
Training and Placement Officer. The post of Senior Lecturer appears
at Sr. No. 3 with pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 and post of Lecturer is at
Sr. No. 4 i.e. the last cadre in pay-scale of Rs.2000-4000.
22. After these norms issued in August 1990, the State
Government has issued its resolution dated 26.05.1992 wherein it
has extended pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 to Lecturers and as already
noted by us, State Government has done so with some modifications
in scales of pay. There is no challenge to these modifications.
23. The petitioners claimed that they are from teaching staff
and equivalent to Head of Department and hence they are entitled to
pay-scale of Rs.3,700-5300. They are not claiming any other pay-
scale or any other advantage. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Bihar and others .vrs. Bihar State
Workshop Superintendents Federation and others reported at 1993
Supp (2) SCC 368, needs to be appreciated in this background.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
25
24. In the said judgment, there was an earlier petition filed
by one Shri Gupta, a Workshop Superintendent claiming himself to
be a teaching employee, and therefore, the entitlement to UGC pay-
scale. It was allowed in part, and Letters Patent Appeal against it
was also disposed of after noticing the decision of the State
Government to implement the UGC pay-scales for employees of
Polytechnic. Thus the UGC pay-scale of Rs.1200-1900 was
extended to him from 01.04.1973. S.L.P. preferred by Government
of Bihar was dismissed in motion as the Hon’ble Apex Court found
no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the same.
Before the Hon’ble Apex Court in challenge to subsequent orders
passed by the High Court, contention of State of Bihar was, as
Workshop Superintendents were not holding teaching post, there
was no question of extending UGC pay-scales to them. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in this background in paragraph no.6 has noted the
contentions of respondents before it and a letter dated 12.04.1959
sent by the AICTE to all State Governments equating the post of
Workshop Superintendent with assistant professor in pay-scale of Rs.
650-1150 in engineering colleges and that of a lecturer in pay-scale
of Rs.350-850 in polytechnic conducting diploma courses. In
paragraph no.7, qualifications laid down by the AITCE on
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
26
10.10.1966 for teaching staff have also been noted. For Workshop
Superintendent, qualification noted is First Class Diploma in
Engineering with 8 years experience or Second Class Degree with 5
years experience. It was further pointed out that there were only 15
Workshop Superintendents who would get the benefit, if the pay-
scales as recommended by the AICTE were extended. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has noted that it was a dying cadre and in Bihar College
of Engineering, Patna and R.I.T. Jamshedpur the Workshop
Superintendent were granted pay-scales of Assistant Professor as
per UGC. In paragraph no.8 the Hon’ble Apex Court has found that
AICTE and other authorities were treating the post of Workshop
Superintendent as teaching post and had fixed them in the pay-scale
equivalent to Associate Professor. Then the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that “so far as this category of respondents is concerned, it is
a dying cadre, and even if in terms, they are not entitled to grant of
UGC scale which can only be made applicable in case of a teaching staff
serving in the colleges run by the University, we find no justification so
far as the respondents are concerned, not to allow them the benefit of
the pay-scale at least equivalent to the post of assistant professors.”
25. Thus, in view of the historical background and terms and
conditions of service and pay-scales which remained applicable to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
27
the respondents for a considerable long period of time, the Hon’ble
Apex Court upheld the revised pay-scale of Assistant Professors
(senior Scale) Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000 to the respondents.
This has been done in order to do complete justice. Thus, finding
recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court no where expressly state that
said post of Workshop Superintendent were held as equivalent to the
post of associate professors (senior scale). On the contrary due to
the long standing practice in State of Bihar, the terms and conditions
of service and as it was a dying cadre, in order to do complete justice
that pay-scale has been extended to the Workshop Superintendents.
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.
26. The pay-scale of lecturer as revised on 01.01.1986 is
2200-3700 and pay-scale of Lecturer [senior scale] is 3000-4500.
Pay scale of Lecturer [selection grade] is 3700-5300 as per
government resolution dated 26.05.1992. Thus exact identical pay
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
28
scale comparable with one awarded by the Hon’ble Apex Court is
that of Lecturer [senior scale]. In State of Bihar that pay scale was
3000-5000, while in the State of Maharashtra it was 3000-4500. It
is to be noted that the pay-scale for Head of the Department also
began from 3700 and was same as that of Lecturer [selection grade].
The Hon’ble Apex Court was not required to look into the claim that
Workshop Superintendents are in the cadre of Head of Department
and hence, are entitled to pay scale of 3700-5300. It is not
necessary to go into more details of said matter at this stage.
However, it needs to be pointed out here that, if Lecturer [senior
scale] is shown as Senior Lecturer, AICTE Norms in August, 1990
prescribed pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 for said post and the Hon’ble
Apex Court in State of Bihar and others .vrs. Bihar State Workshop
Superintendents Federation and others (supra) has given that pay
scale to respondents before it.
27. The qualifications prescribed for Workshop
Superintendents prevailing at the time of entry of petitioners in
service are not in dispute. The statutory regulations prescribing
qualifications have come into picture only on 05.03.2010. Faculty
norms which form part of the said regulations and lay down the
minimum qualification and requirement of experience etc., show
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
29
same qualification for Lecturer and Workshop Superintendents.
These statutory regulations when viewed in the background of the
history which we have noted, it is apparent that though the
Workshop Superintendents have been treated as part of teaching
staff, they have not been treated earlier either as Lecturer or then as
Lecturer (Senior Scale). The Lecture (Selection Grade) and Head of
Department are the posts at top of the hierarchy. A person in order
to become eligible for consideration as Lecturer was required to hold
better/superior qualification then the post of Workshop
Superintendent. In this situation, mere communication from the
AICTE stating the Workshop Superintendent is equal in cadre of
Head of Department or then their inclusion in AICTE norms of
August, 1990 in Table 10 as a part of teaching staff along with the
Head of Department, Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Trainee
and Placement Officer, does not by itself entitle them to the scale of
Head of Department. The Workshop Superintendents, envisaged in
August, 1990 Norms by the AICTE are persons who can be said as
equal to Head of Department or Senior Lecturer [Selection Grade]
not only because of pay scale, but because of better qualification
also. Effort of petitioners to claim pay scale of Head of Department
merely because they are equated with cadre in Head of Department,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
30
is, unsustainable. Mere mention that Workshop Superintendent is
treated at part with Head of Department or Senior Lecturer is not
sufficient. It is well settled that even while extending equal pay for
equal work, difference in qualification is held sufficient to deny this
benefit. Here also “mention” and “equation” are artificial and
became necessary, may be, only for administrative convenience.
28. Effort of petitioners is to show that because of AICTE
recommendations their pay scales stood revised to 3700-5300 with
the pay scale of Head of Department. It is to be noted that there was
no statutory instruction till 05.03.2010 in this respect. The
Government of Maharashtra in terms on 26.05.1992 adopted the
AICTE Norms with some modifications in pay scales and petitioners
were given pay scale of Rs.2200-3700 i.e. equivalent to the Lecturer
from 01.01.1986. Neither judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State
of Bihar (supra) nor any Norms/Standards introduced petitioners in
superior cadre. In this situation, we find no substance in the efforts
of petitioners to compare themselves with either Head of
Department or Lecturer (Selection Grade) to claim their pay-scale.
29. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in 1995 [4] SCC 104 (State
of T.N. And another .vers. Adhiyaman Educational & Research
Institute and others) considered the issue of powers with State
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
31
Government to grant and withdraw permission to start an
institution, after coming into force of All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987 i.e. 1987 Act. All observations therein are
because of a statutory provision occupying the field vide 1987 Act,
and the State enactment i.e. T.N. Private Colleges (Regulation) Act.
Articles 246, 248 and 254 of the Constitution of India have been
found to be determinative and Entry no.66 in Schedule-VII List 1
(Union List) is interpreted. Strong reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for petitioners on conclusions recorded in paragraph
no.41(i) by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has found that the expression “coordination” used in entry no.
66 means harmonization, with a view to forge a uniform pattern
for a concerted action according to certain design, Scheme or plan
for development. It is to be noted that therefore, it includes action
not only for removing all disparities in standards, but also for
preventing the occurrence of such disparities. The further
conclusions, particularly [v] and [vi], also show situation in which
State authority is not prevented from laying higher standards or
qualifications. When State Authority de-recognizes or disqualifies
an institution for not satisfying the standards or qualifications laid
down by it, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if such institution
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
32
satisfies the norms and recommendations laid down by the Central
Authority, the State Government acts illegally. It is therefore,
obvious that when there was a binding law occupying the field and
State Government wanted to do something inconsistent with it, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has found it unsustainable. Here that is not the
position. No binding law was available, at least till 05.03.2010. The
AICTE laid down some norms in August, 1990 but then as already
observed by us above, those norms have no statutory force.
Moreover, prescriptions therein did not and do not confer any right
upon petitioners to claim pay-scale of Rs.3700-5300/-
30. As we have found that there was no service condition,
settled or otherwise, which could have forced the State
Government to extend the pay scale of 3700-5300 to petitioners, it is
obvious that there is no change in their service conditions. The
arguments of learned Counsel for petitioners, that Regulations of
2010 are prospective and cannot affect the pay scales already
determined, are therefore, misconceived. Reliance upon judgment
reported in the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa and others .vrs.
Rasananda Das (supra) and in case of D.P. Sharma and others .vrs.
Union of India and another (supra), is therefore, misconceived. We
have already made reference to law as expanded in those judgments,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
33
briefly above and it is sufficient to reveal that reliance upon it is
misconceived.
31. Hence, in this situation, we do not find any merit in the
petition. Hence, rejection of claim as made by petitioners by
respondent no.5 Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, cannot be
interfered with. Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
A. P. BHANGALE, J B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J
joshi
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:21 :::
