IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W. P. (C) 6644/1998 & CM 12320/1998, 4865/2001, 7611/2003
Reserved on: July 25, 2011
Decision on: August 5, 2011
VIVEKANAND JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Jha with
Mr. Binay Kumar Das, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar with
Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocates.
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
05.08.2011
1. The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Respondent No. 2,
and the Union of India in the Ministry of Human Resource and Development (`HRD
Ministry’), Respondent No. 1, to sanction the post of lecturer in Sociology in Rani
Padmavati Tarayogtantra Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Indrapur (Shivpur), Varanasi
(UP), Respondent No. 3, and absorb the Petitioner as lecturer in Sociology in Respondent
No. 3 with effect from 29th October 1998, the date on which certain other posts in
Respondent No. 3 were sanctioned and lecturers absorbed.
2. The Petitioner also challenges the Report of the Expert Committee (`EC’) dated 15th
April 1997 to the extent of non-inclusion of the Petitioner’s name for such absorption. He
W.P. (C) No. 6644 of 1998 Page 1 of 6
further seeks a declaration that the office order dated 17th November 1998 issued by
Respondent No. 2 declining the sanctioning of the post of lecturer in Sociology was
illegal.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had applied for the post of lecturer in Sociology in
Respondent No. 3 in 1995 and after interview by a Selection Committee was
recommended for the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (`PGT’)/lecturer in Sociology (one
of modern vocational language) on 31st July 1995. The Petitioner stated that he was
appointed to the said post on 9th August 1995. He claims that he has been working on the
said post continuously without any break as of the date of the filing of the present writ
petition, i.e., 18th December 1998.
4. The HRD Ministry and Respondent No. 2 constituted an EC who visited Respondent
No. 3 College on 14th April 1997. In a report dated 15th April 1997 the EC opined that the
Petitioner’s work was unsatisfactory and, therefore, recommended the abolition of the
post of lecturer in Sociology. The Petitioner assails the said recommendation and
contends that the denial of sanction of the post of lecturer in Sociology while sanctioning
other posts was arbitrary and discriminatory. He points out that the report of the EC
screening the performance of the Petitioner and other lecturers also proceeded on
erroneous assumptions.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it has been asserted that the
EC constituted on 14th April 1997 comprising of eminent scholars and senior officers
scrutinized the performance of the teaching staff, including the Petitioner and one Shri
Prafulla Kumar Choudhary, who were the only two teachers teaching Sociology. Their
W.P. (C) No. 6644 of 1998 Page 2 of 6
performance was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, the EC recommended that
Sociology as a subject should be dropped altogether. The abolition of the post is sought
to be explained as purely an administrative action and a policy decision of the
Respondents. Further, it is denied that the Petitioner possess the requisite qualification as
prescribed by the University Grants Commission (`UGC’) for lecturership in 1995. The
stand of the Respondents is that the Petitioner did not possess a Ph. D. degree or NET in
1995 and, therefore, was not eligible to be appointed as a lecturer. He was, therefore,
offered the post of a PGT in Sociology which he accepted and joined on 9th August 1995.
6. In an additional affidavit filed on 1st August 2007, the Petitioner stated that he had
been awarded a Ph. D. degree on 4th July 2006. He submits that the Review Committee
had recommended the name of Shri Laxmi Kant Pathak for absorption as lecturer
because he had submitted his thesis for Ph. D. although he was not awarded the Ph. D.
degree. According to the Petitioner, the job assigned to a lecturer and a PGT is the same.
According to the Petitioner, despite Respondents 1 and 2 asking Respondent No. 3 to
absorb the Petitioner by several letters, it failed to comply with those directions. On the
part of Respondent No. 3, it is pointed out that the Petitioner has now been absorbed as a
PGT in 2007 but not since 19th October 1998.
7. The Petitioner has placed on record copy of the letters dated 9th April 2008 and 31st
July 2008 written by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 2 stating that the decision of
the Managing Committee dated 28th April 2008 was that the Petitioner and one Shri
Madhup Nath Jha, PGT had to unconditionally withdraw their writ petitions and only
thereafter their cases for absorption would be considered.
W.P. (C) No. 6644 of 1998 Page 3 of 6
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in D.S. Nakara
v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC
586 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 1991 Supp (1) SCC
600 to urge that the Respondents had acted unfairly in denying absorption to the
Petitioner in the post of lecturer in sociology with effect from 19th October 1998.
According to him, the work of lecturer and a PGT was the same and, therefore, he could
not be denied the pay and benefits in the post of PGT with effect from 19th October 1998
which were available to a lecturer. Further, it is pointed out that there were cases of
certain others who were appointed as PGT when they did not have a Ph. D. degree but
were subsequently absorbed as lecturers. Consequently, it is submitted that the Petitioner
has been unfairly discriminated against.
9. The scope of the present proceedings has been narrowed down considerably. The
Petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition, has been absorbed as a PGT in
Sociology. The only issue to be considered is whether he has made out a case for a
direction to be issued to the Respondents to absorb him as a lecturer in Sociology with
effect from 19th October 1998.
10. The Petitioner has placed on record a copy of the letter written on 17th May 2005 by
the HRD Ministry to Respondent No. 2. The said letter reads as under:-
“S. No. 10(I)
No. F. 25-20/2004-SKt-I
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resources Development
Department of Secondary & Higher Education
(Sanskrit-I Section)New Delhi dated 17th May 2005
W.P. (C) No. 6644 of 1998 Page 4 of 6
To,The Director
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan
Janakpuri, New DelhiSubject: Appointment of Sh. Vivekanand Jha as PGT,
Sociology in Rani Padmani Tara Yog Tantra
ASM, Varanasi-regarding.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No. RSK/Ad/35011/ 2004-
05/819 dated 19.4.2005 on the subject mentioned above and to say
that the department has no objection to the Sansthan’s the proposal
of keeping the three vacant posts of lecturer in abeyance and
creating supernumerary posts of PGT, which will be personal to the
incumbents.
You may, therefore, issue necessary instructions directing the Rani
Padmani Tara Adarsh Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi to take follow up
action and accommodate Shri Vivekanand Jha as PGT, Sociology
since 1998 as recommended by the Review Committee. Self-
contained proposal relating to the cases of Shri Madhoop Nath Jha,
Shri Akhilesh Mishra and Smt. Asha Mishra may be sent separately
for consideration in this department.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(Prem Narain Saxena)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India”
11. There is no denial by the Respondents of the above factual position. It does appear
that the Petitioner has now been absorbed in the post of PGT in Sociology but this has
been given only prospective effect. It also appears that on 25th May 2009, in response to a
letter by Respondent No. 3 dated 28th January 2009, Respondent No. 2 had granted
approval to make the payments of the arrears of salary to the Petitioner as a PGT with
effect from 29th October 1998 to 11th January 2007. For all practicable purposes,
therefore, the Petitioner has been treated as having been appointed as a TGT in Sociology
from 29th October 1998. If the entire arrears of the salary on that basis have not yet been
W.P. (C) No. 6644 of 1998 Page 5 of 6
paid to the Petitioner, it is directed that it should within eight weeks from today.
12. As regards the absorption of the Petitioner as lecturer in Sociology, this Court is
unable to accept the submission that the post of PGT and lecturer in Sociology are the
same. The UGC has clearly set down norms for appointments as lecturer in Sociology.
One of the essential qualifications is that the candidate should possess a Ph. D. degree or
should have qualified the NET. Admittedly, the Petitioner obtained the Ph. D. degree in
February 2006. Notwithstanding the absorption of certain others as lecturers at a time
when they did not possibly possess the Ph. D. degree, the Petitioner cannot as a matter of
right, demand that he should be absorbed as a lecturer in Sociology, at a time when he
did not possess the basic qualification of a Ph. D. degree.
13. Consequently, this Court declines the grant of the relief of absorption of the Petitioner
in the post of lecturer in Sociology with effect from 29th October 1998.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. All the pending applications stand
disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
AUGUST 5, 2011
akg
W.P. (C) No. 6644 of 1998 Page 6 of 6