{"id":177435,"date":"2011-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-09-28T02:25:57","modified_gmt":"2015-09-27T20:55:57","slug":"narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n                     NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                                                 \n    Writ  Petition No. 1393 of 1999\n\n    Petitioners :    1) Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar, aged about\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                     37 years, occ: service, resident of c\/o Govt \n\n                     Polytechnic College, Nagpur\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                     2) Anil Wamanrao Wankhede, aged about 37\n                        \n                     years, occ: service, resident of c\/o Govt.\n                       \n                     Polytechnic College, Nagpur\n\n                     3) Ravindra Dyaneshwarrao Warhokar, aged\n      \n\n\n                     about 43 years, resident of c\/o Government\n   \n\n\n\n                     Polytechnic College,  Yavatmal\n\n                     4) Abdul Mujeeb  Khan, aged about 42 years,\n\n\n\n\n\n                     occ: service, resident of c\/o Government \n\n                     Polytechnic College, Amravati\n\n\n\n\n\n                     5) Sunil Gangadhar Deshpande, aged about\n\n                     42 years, occ: service, resident of Nagpur\n\n                     versus\n\n    Respondents :    1) State of Maharashtra, through its \n\n                     Secretary, Technical & Higher Education, \n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                              2\n\n                        Mantralaya, Mumbai\n\n                        2) Director, Technical Education, MS, Mumbai\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n                        3) All India Council for Technical Education,\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                        New Delhi\n\n                        4) Maharashtra Public Service Commission,\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                        Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Mumbai\n\n                        5) Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                        Nagpur Bench, nagpur\n                            \n                           \n    Mr H.D. Dangre, Advocate for petitioners\n\n    Mr A. Parihar, AGP for respondents no. 1,2,4 and 5\n      \n\n\n    Ms Usha Tanna, Advocate for respondent no. 3\n   \n\n\n\n                        Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, J\n\n\n\n\n\n                        Dated  : 28\/29th September  2011\n\n\n\n\n\n    Oral Judgment (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J)\n\n    1.           Five petitioners before us have challenged the judgment \n\n    delivered   by   Maharashtra   Administrative   Tribunal   in   Original \n\n    Application No. 719 of 1997 on 15.1.1999 rejecting their prayer for \n\n    direction   to   respondents   to   extend   to   them   the   pay0scale   of   Rs. \n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                              3\n\n    3700-5700 by treating them as Head of the Department.  It is not in \n\n    dispute   that   all   five   petitioners   have   been   duly   selected   and \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n    appointed as Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    College under respondents no. 1 and 2 prior to 20th September 1989.\n\n    2.            Mr Dangre while advancing the cause of petitioner has \n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    contended   that     only   defence   before   the   Tribunal   raised   by \n\n    respondents no. 1 and 2 was that post of Workshop Superintendent \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    is   not   a   teaching   post.     He   points   out   that   norms   issued   by \n                             \n    respondent   no.   3   All     India   Council   for   Technical   Education \n                            \n    constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education  Act, \n\n    1987     (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   \"1987   Act\")   were     not   in \n      \n\n\n    dispute and its binding effect was  shown by respondent no. 3 even \n   \n\n\n\n    before   the Tribunal. He has invited attention to those norms as in \n\n    the year 1990 to urge that by its perusal, there is no scope for doubt \n\n\n\n\n\n    that post of Workshop Superintendent has been treated as equivalent \n\n    to the post of Head of the Department   or then  of Senior Lecturer \n\n\n\n\n\n    (Selection grade) and pay-scale for them is Rs. 3700-5700.  He has \n\n    also pointed out  the relevant clauses to substantiate his contention \n\n    and to show that Workshop Superintendent has been placed in the \n\n    cadre of Head of the Department.  Job description of a Lecturer and \n\n    of   Workshop   Superintendent   is   also   read   out   for   this   purpose. \n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                               4\n\n    Contention is that this material on record has not been looked into \n\n    by respondent no. 5 Tribunal.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    3.            Without   prejudice   to   this   contention   and   in   the \n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    alternative,   learned   counsel   has,   presuming   that   Workshop \n\n    Superintendent   cannot   be   treated   as   a   teaching   post,   invited \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    attention to the communication dated 20th  September 1989 issued \n\n    by   AICTE   to   urge   that     there   recommendation   on   the   point   of \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    revision of pay-scale appears and for Head of the Department the \n                             \n    pay-scale   of   Rs.   3700-5700   has   been   proposed.     Learned   counsel \n                            \n    states   tat   recommendations  with    AICTE     are   applicable     even   to \n\n    petitioners.  The decision of State Government dated 26th May 1992 \n      \n\n\n    issued in the light of this communication is also relied upon and it is \n   \n\n\n\n    pointed out that those revised scales have come into force from 1st \n\n    January   1986.     Attention   is   invited   to   later   resolution   dated   22nd \n\n\n\n\n\n    November 1993 which modifies this resolution and exempts them \n\n    from acquiring   revised educational qualification.   The judgment of \n\n\n\n\n\n    Honourable   Apex   Court     in  State   of   Bihar   and   ors   v.   Bihar   State \n\n    Workshop Supdt Federation and ors reported at 1993 Supp (2) SCC \n\n    368 is pressed into service to show that there the post of Workshop \n\n    Superintendent is already held to be a teaching post by Honourable \n\n    Apex   Court.     Thus,   in   the   light   of   this   judgment   and   above-\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                                 5\n\n    mentioned   decision\/resolution,   contention   is   that   petitioners   are \n\n    entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n    4.             In the light of this material, order of the Tribunal dated \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    5.1.1999 is also read out and it is contended that the Judgment of \n\n    Honourable  Apex Court has not been appreciated at all.  It is further \n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    contended   that   the   fact   that   petitioners   were   duly   qualified   and, \n\n    therefore,   were   selected   and   have   been   appointed   as   Workshop \n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    Superintendent prior to 20th September 1989 or its impact in present \n                              \n    matter is totally lost sight of by the Tribunal.   It is contended that \n                             \n    letters   of AICTE mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of its \n\n    order were, therefore, not relevant at all.  Reliance is also placed on \n      \n\n\n    judgment   of   Honourable   Apex   Court   in  State   of   T.N.   &   anr   v. \n   \n\n\n\n    Adhiyaman Educational and ors  reported at  (1995) 4 SCC 104   to \n\n    show   that     AICTE   is   the   only   authorised   and   competent   body   to \n\n\n\n\n\n    decide  not only qualification  but also  pay  structure  and the  State \n\n    Government cannot avoid its responsibility to implement the norms \n\n\n\n\n\n    prescribed   by   it.     Learned   counsel   has   drawn   our   attention   to \n\n    preamble of 1987 Act and  mandatory provision Section 10 thereof \n\n    with contention that  the subjects mentioned in clause IV of Section \n\n    10   are   only   illustrative.     It   is   contended   that   it   is   the   exclusive \n\n    privilege of AICTE to take all steps for ensuring   coordination and \n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                              6\n\n    integrated development of technical education and norms fixed by it, \n\n    therefore, deserve primacy.  The provisions in Section 22 conferring \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n    rule-making   power,     Section   23   authorises   AICTE   to   frame \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Regulations   and     requirement   in   Section   24   to   lay   rules   and \n\n    regulations   before the Parliament, are also pressed into service for \n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    said purpose.\n\n    5.            Ms   Usha   Tanna,   learned   counsel   respondent   no.   3   has \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    urged that Workshop Superintendent is not Head of the Department, \n                             \n    but he is in-charge of Workshop.  The norms prescribed by AICTE are \n                            \n    not binding upon the State Government and attention is invited to \n\n    the   fact   that   for   post   of   Head   of   the   Department   more   superior \n      \n\n\n    qualifications are prescribed.  He points out that only petitioner no. \n   \n\n\n\n    1   was   possessing  those   qualifications  at   the   relevant  time.  In  this \n\n    backdrop,   attention   is   invited   to   Norms   and   Standards   for \n\n\n\n\n\n    Polytechnics,   particularly clause 6.2.4 which     shows that post of \n\n    Workshop   Superintendent   is   placed   in   the   cadre   of   Head   of   the \n\n\n\n\n\n    Department with stand that it is not equivalence.\n\n    6.            Mr   Parihar,   learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader \n\n    appearing   for   other   respondents   has   supported   the   order   of   the \n\n    Maharashtra   Administrative   Tribunal.     He   contends   that   post   of \n\n    Workshop   Superintendent   is   falling   in   Maharashtra     Educational \n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                                 7\n\n    Service, Class-I (junior cadre)  while post of Head of the Department \n\n    is in superior cadre.  He points out that when  MPSC advertised the \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n    post, this position was apparent and it  also stipulated that Workshop \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Superintendent had the prospects of promotion to the post of Head \n\n    of the Department.  Pay-scale of Rs. 2200-2700  was also indicated \n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    in  the  advertisement.    He  has invited  attention  to the  norms and \n\n    standard   as issued by respond AICTE in August 1990 to urge that \n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    those norms are only guidelines.  Table-10 dealing with staff salaries \n                              \n    is   stated   to   be   based   on   hypothetical   pay-scales   only     for   the \n                             \n    purposes   of   cost   estimation.     It   is   pointed   out   that   in   so   far   as \n\n    teaching cadre is concerned, post of Lecturer is an entry post and \n      \n\n\n    post of Senior Lecturer in pay-scale of Rs. 3000-5000 is next superior \n   \n\n\n\n    post.     Post   of   Head   of   Department\/Senior   Lecturer   (Selection \n\n    Grade)\/Workshop   Superintendent\/Training   and   Placement   Officer \n\n\n\n\n\n    are still higher posts and all these posts are given pay-scale of Rs. \n\n    3700-5700.  He states that thus a person with requisite qualification \n\n\n\n\n\n    and recruited in pay-scale commencing from Rs. 2200 cannot jump \n\n    hierarchy and become Head.   He argues that higher qualifications \n\n    prescribed   in   clause   6.1.11   of   said   norms   clearly   show   that   the \n\n    petitioners   cannot   compare   themselves   with   Head   of   Department. \n\n    The   attention   is   invited   to   the   Government   Resolution   dated   26th \n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                              8\n\n    May 1992 which has been passed after   communication dated 20th \n\n    September   1989   from   the   AICTE   to   demonstrate   that   the   State \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n    Government had decided to implement the Scheme as envisaged by \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    the AICTE with some modification in scales of pay and subject to \n\n    terms and conditions of service as described therein.  The coverage is \n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    to teacher who fulfills required qualification laid down by the AICTE. \n\n    Appendix-I along with this resolution is  again pressed into service to \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    show   how   post   of   Lecturer   in   the   pay-scale   of   Rs.   2200-3700   is \n                             \n    lowest post or entry post.  Next higher post available is of  Lecturer \n                            \n    (Senior Scale) and thereafter Lecturer (Senior Grade) and then at sr. \n\n    no. 4 post of  Head of Department in pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5300. \n      \n\n\n    Learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader   in   this   backdrop   contends \n   \n\n\n\n    that   effort of petitioners to compare  themselves with the post  of \n\n    Head of Department in present facts is, therefore, misconceived.  He \n\n\n\n\n\n    points   out   that   qualifications   as   prescribed   were     held   only   by \n\n    petitioner no. 1 and not by others.  According to him, having applied \n\n\n\n\n\n    in response to such an advertisement and then worked accordingly, \n\n    challenge   of     such   nature   raised   belatedly   is   unsustainable   and \n\n    deserves to be rejected.   He points out that AICTE is not providing \n\n    any financial assistance and hence, grant of pay-scale   is a policy \n\n    decision completely in domain of the State Government. \n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                               9\n\n    7.            Learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced All \n\n    India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    and   Qualifications   for   the   Teachers   and   other   Academic   Staff   in \n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    Technical   Institutions   (Diploma)   Regulations,   2010   issued   under \n\n    Notification dated 5th March 2010.  These Regulations referred to as \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    \"2010  Regulations\"   have come  into force on 5th March 2010 and \n\n    extend pay-scale of  Lecturer to Workshop Superintendent and not \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    the pay-scale of Head of the Department. Provisions of Clause 1\/1.3 \n                             \n    (a) and Faculty Norms   prescribing   qualifications are pressed into \n                            \n    service.     To substantiate this contention, orders dated 8th  February \n\n    1996 and 20th  January 1992 issued to one Vijay Mankar and Ajay \n      \n\n\n    Shah and others are also shown to this Court to demonstrate that \n   \n\n\n\n    the   post   of   Head   of   the   Department   is   superior   to   the   post   of \n\n    Workshop Superintendent.  Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in \n\n\n\n\n\n    State of Bihar and ors v. Bihar State Workshop Supdt Federation and  \n\n    ors  (supra) is sought to be distinguished by pointing out that there \n\n\n\n\n\n    pay-scale   demanded   was   of   a   Lecturer   and   as   per   UGC \n\n    recommendations.\n\n    8.              Mr   Dangre   in   reply   has   contended   that   stand   of \n\n    respondent no. 3 before this Court is contrary to its stand before the \n\n    Tribunal.     He   contends   that   similar   grievance   was   made   before \n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                             10\n\n    Honourable Apex Court about role of respondent no. 3 in   State of \n\n    Bihar   and   ors   v.   Bihar   State   Workshop   Supdt   Federation   and   ors \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n    (supra).   He  submits that now petitioners  no. 2 and 5  have both \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    acquired   post-graduate   qualification   and   petitioner   no.   1   is   has   a \n\n    doctorate.       According   to   him,   therefore,   even   if   the   educational \n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    qualifications are required to be looked into, petitioners no. 1,2 and \n\n    5   satisfy   the   said   requirement.     He   has   invited   attention   to \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    communication   dated   11th  December   1998   sent   by     AICTE   to \n                             \n    respondents no. 1 and 2 to show that there it has been specifically \n                            \n    communicated to respondents that Training and Placement Officer \n\n    and Workshop Superintendents are   equal in cadre to Head of the \n      \n\n\n    Department and, therefore, post of Workshop Superintendent is post \n   \n\n\n\n    of     Head   of   the   Department.       In   this   backdrop,   observations   in \n\n    paragraph 40 in the judgment of  Honourable Apex Court in  State of \n\n\n\n\n\n    T.N.   &   anr   v.   Adhiyaman   Educational   and   ors    (supra)   are   relied \n\n    upon along with relevant provisions of 1987 Act to urge that norms \n\n\n\n\n\n    fixed by AICTE must be implemented by respondent no. 1.\n\n    9.            Inviting attention to booklet issued by respondent no. 3 \n\n    from   which     Annexure-E   has   been   produced   before   this   Court, \n\n    learned   counsel     contends   that   word   \"estimation\"   used   therein   is \n\n    only because  of number of students presumed.  He points out that \n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                              11\n\n    such   number  of   students   is   taken   to   be   180   and   accordingly,   the \n\n    number of posts required in various cadres is worked out and on that \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    basis   cost   estimation   has   been   arrived   at.     According   to   him,   if \n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    number   of   students   increases   or   decreases,   it   will   result   only   in \n\n    proportional   reduction   in   number   of   teaching   and   non-teaching \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    posts, but it will not affect the pay-scale as prescribed therein.  \n\n    10.           By   placing   reliance     upon   the   fact   that   Workshop \n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Superintendent   and   Training   &   Placement   Officer   are     already \n                             \n    equated with Head of the Department by Statute,   he seeks to rely \n                            \n    upon  copy of   order dated  29th  July  1997  to urge  that  Training & \n\n    Placement Officers are duly recognized as Head of the department. \n      \n\n\n    He contends that thus said recommendation of respondent no. 3 has \n   \n\n\n\n    been implemented only in relation to Training & Placement Officers \n\n    and   has   been   withheld   in   case     of   cadre   of   petitioners.     This, \n\n\n\n\n\n    according to him, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of \n\n    India.\n\n\n\n\n\n    11.           Regulations issued on 5th  March 2010 and produced by \n\n    learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader   are   sought   to   be   used   in \n\n    favour   of   petitioners   by   stating   that   in   it   the   post   of   Workshop \n\n    Superintendent   is   recognized   as   teaching   post.       Similarly,   the \n\n    entitlement   or   power   of   respondent   no.   3   to   prescribe   even   pay-\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:20 :::\n                                              12\n\n    scales   is   duly   recognized   in   it.     Thus,   stand   of   respondent   State \n\n    Government before Tribunal that Workshop Superintendent is not a \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    teaching post is defeated by this document.   Similarly,   finding of \n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    Tribunal that Section 10 of 1987 Act does not enable respondent no. \n\n    3 AICTE to prescribe pay-scales is also rendered infructuous.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    12.           Without   prejudice   to   this   contention,   learned   counsel \n\n    states that the settled  service conditions of the petitioners cannot be \n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    disturbed   by   these   subsequent   Regulations   which   have   come   into \n                             \n    force on or after 5th March 2010.  Right to receive pay-scale of Head \n                            \n    of   the   Department     has   accrued   to   petitioners     before   they \n\n    approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in 1997 and hence \n      \n\n\n    Regulations of 2010 can be given only prospective effect.  Judgment \n   \n\n\n\n    of   Honourable   Apex  Court   in  Grid  Corporation   of  Orissa   &  ors  v. \n\n    Rasananda   Das  reported   at  (2003)   10     SCC   297  is   pressed   into \n\n\n\n\n\n    service to show that there cannot be retrospective change of pay-\n\n    scale   prejudicial   to   the   employees.     Similarly,   judgment   of \n\n\n\n\n\n    Honourable Apex Court in  D.P. Sharma & ors v. Union of India and \n\n    anr reported at 1989 Supp (1) SCC 244 is also pressed into service \n\n    with   contention   that   rule   for   determination   of   seniority   and \n\n    promotion   cannot   be     changed   to   the   disadvantage   of   employee \n\n    retrospectively.     Learned   counsel,   therefore,   reiterated   that   in   the \n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::\n                                            13\n\n    light of norms issued by AICTE, post of Workshop Superintendent \n\n    must be treated as equivalent to post of Head of the Department and \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n    in view of judgment of Honourable Apex Court in  State of Bihar & \n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    ors   v.   Bihar   State   Workshop   and   ors  (supra),   challenge   in   the \n\n    petition needs to be allowed.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    13.          Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Grid Corporation  \n\n    & ors v. Rasananda Das  (supra) shows that there Honourable Apex \n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Court has held that conditions of service cannot be altered   to the \n                            \n    disadvantage   of   employees   by   reducing   their   pay-scales   or \n                           \n    withdrawing any service benefits.  Facts<\/pre>\n
 show that  higher pay-scale <\/p>\n
    was granted by appellant Corporation to the employees employed <\/p>\n
    prior   to   1960   at   par   with   other   employees   by   State   Government <\/p>\n
    without any reservation.  Such employees were entitled to continue <\/p>\n
    in service till 60 years of age though for employees recruited after <\/p>\n
    1.4.1960 age of retirement was 58 years.  Effort was made to reduce <\/p>\n
    pay-scale for such pre-1.4.1960 employees for the service rendered <\/p>\n
    by them between 58 years and 60 years.   Honourable Apex Court <\/p>\n
    has found that such an exercise was violative of   Article   14 of the <\/p>\n
    Constitution of India as there could not have been two types of pay-\n<\/p>\n
    scales, one for the purpose of continuing in service upto the age of <\/p>\n
    58 years  and later for continuing after the age of  58 years till age of <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
    60 years.  The observations are in the backdrop of a right to receive <\/p>\n
    pension and Honourable Apex Court has noted that the pension is <\/p>\n
    not a bounty,  but hard-earned benefit.  Thus,  said employee while <\/p>\n
    continuing upto 58 years of age, was entitled to protection and a <\/p>\n
    higher pay-scale.   However, when he was rendering service beyond <\/p>\n
    58 years and till 60 years, his pay-scale was getting reduced.   This <\/p>\n
    affected his last pay and, therefore, pension.  In D. P. Sharma & ors v.\n<\/p>\n
    Union of India and anr  (supra),   Honourable Apex Court has found <\/p>\n
    that rule providing that persons substantively  appointed to a grade <\/p>\n
    shall rank senior to those holding officiating  appointment in a grade <\/p>\n
    could not have retrospective effect.  It could not impair the existing <\/p>\n
    rights of  officials who were appointed long prior to the Rules came <\/p>\n
    into force.   Honourable Apex Court noticed that  office memoranda <\/p>\n
    relied upon by learned single Judge of the High Court and perused <\/p>\n
    by it clearly expected only length of service to be a guiding principle <\/p>\n
    for arranging inter-se seniority of officials.     Approach of Division <\/p>\n
    Bench was, therefore, found not correct.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         Here  the violation  of Article 14  and  above  case law is <\/p>\n
    pressed into service by pointing out the orders issued by the State <\/p>\n
    Government on 29th July 1997 and thereafter  It appears that earlier <\/p>\n
    State Government had approved filling up of a vacancy in the post of <\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
    Head of the Department by promotion.  However, some posts though <\/p>\n
    approved were  from quota to be filled in by nomination and hence, <\/p>\n
    ad-hoc promotions were made against it.   Issue of continuing such <\/p>\n
    ad-hoc   promotees further by giving them   break of one day was <\/p>\n
    under consideration of the State Government.  Accordingly by giving <\/p>\n
    such break, promotions have been continued.   The persons whose <\/p>\n
    names appear at sr. nos. 5 and 6 in said order appear to be Training <\/p>\n
    &   Placement   Officers.     Their   qualifications   are   not   before   us   and <\/p>\n
    learned  Assistant   Government   Pleader  is  also  not   in   a  position   to <\/p>\n
    meet this document as it has been produced today at the eleventh <\/p>\n
    hour.     There   is   no  supporting   affidavit   and   application.   Narration <\/p>\n
    above clearly shows that promotions were only on ad-hoc basis.    Mr <\/p>\n
    Dangre at this stage states that compilation given by him contained <\/p>\n
    other   orders   also   which   show   transfer   of   Training   &   Placement <\/p>\n
    Officers as Heads of the Department and vice-versa.   The question <\/p>\n
    sought to be raised on the basis of these orders necessitates some <\/p>\n
    factual substratum.   In absence thereof, we are not in a position to <\/p>\n
    accept the contension of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of <\/p>\n
    India.\n<\/p>\n
    15.           Perusal   of   2010   Regulations  produced   by   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
    Government Pleader show that the same are framed under Section <\/p>\n
    23 (1) read with Section 10 (i) and (v) of the All India Council for <\/p>\n
    Technical Education Act, 1987.  Thus, same are statutory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
    Its   cognizance,   therefore,   needs   to   be   taken   by   this   Court.     The <\/p>\n
    Regulations   are   issued   by   respondent   no.   3   AICTE   and   are   acted <\/p>\n
    upon by other respondents.  It is, therefore, apparent that any effort <\/p>\n
    on   their   part   which   militates   with   its   validity   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    countenanced.  Similarly,  clause  (i) thereof after clause 1.3  having <\/p>\n
    heading “General” reads  that “There shall be designations in respect <\/p>\n
    of   teachers   in   Polytechnics,   namely,   Lecturer,   Head   of   the <\/p>\n
    Department   and   Workshop   Superintendent”.     Little   later   again, <\/p>\n
    heading   “Revised   Pay   Scales,   Service   conditions   and   Career <\/p>\n
    Advancement   Scheme   for   teachers   and   equivalent   positions”\n<\/p>\n
    appears.  It is, therefore, obvious that these 2010 Regulations  accept <\/p>\n
    Workshop   Superintendent   as   teacher.     In   clause   (a)   after   this <\/p>\n
    heading, various pay-scales are prescribed from clause (i) to (xvi) <\/p>\n
    and   thereafter   heading   “Workshop   Superintendent”   appears.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter   Regulations   mention   that   “Workshop   Superintendent   is <\/p>\n
    treated   at   par   with   Lecturer   and   is   to   be   considered   for   upward <\/p>\n
    mobility   similar   to   that   of   Lecturers”.     At   the   end   of   these <\/p>\n
    Regulations, Faculty Norms are mentioned.  Faculty Norms stipulate <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            17<\/span><\/p>\n
    minimum qualifications and experience for appointment of teaching <\/p>\n
    posts in Diploma Level Technical Institutions.   First post appearing <\/p>\n
    therein   is   of   Lecturer\/Workshop   Superintendent   in <\/p>\n
    Engineering\/Technology.   Qualifications   prescribed   therefor   are <\/p>\n
    Bachelor’s degree in Engineering\/Technology in the relevant branch <\/p>\n
    with First Class or equivalent.  If the candidate is possessing Master’s <\/p>\n
    degree   in   Engineering\/Technology,   first   class   or   equivalent   is <\/p>\n
    required at Bachelor’s or Master’s level.   Second post is of Head of <\/p>\n
    Department and qualification prescribed is, Bachelor’s and Master’s <\/p>\n
    degree of appropriate branch in Engineering\/Technology with First <\/p>\n
    Class   or   equivalent   either   at   Bachelor’s   or   Master’s   level   with <\/p>\n
    minimum   of   10   years   relevant   experience   in <\/p>\n
    teaching\/research\/industry.   Alternate   qualification   prescribed   is, <\/p>\n
    Bachelor’s   degree   and   Master’s   degree   of   appropriate   branch   in <\/p>\n
    Engineering\/Technology   with   First   Class   or   equivalent   either   at <\/p>\n
    Bachelor’s or Master’s level and Ph. D. or equivalent in appropriate <\/p>\n
    discipline   in   Engineering\/Technology   with   minimum   of   5   years <\/p>\n
    relevant experience in teaching\/research\/industry.   It is, therefore, <\/p>\n
    obvious that   because of doctorate, the candidate is eligible even if <\/p>\n
    he has five years of relevant experience.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            18<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             SEPTEMBER  29, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
    16.          Having noted the qualifications for the post of Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendent and Head of Department in 2010 regulations, it is <\/p>\n
    appropriate   to   refer   to   the   qualifications   prevalent   when   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners were recruited.  The advertisement by Respondent No. 4 <\/p>\n
    published on 22.09.1988, reveals that the Educational qualification <\/p>\n
    contemplated was Second Class Degree in Bachelor of Engineering <\/p>\n
    or Master’s Degree in Engineering or then Diploma in Second Class <\/p>\n
    in Engineering and passing of A & B parts of A.M.I.E. with 3 years <\/p>\n
    experience.   The   pay-scale   then   stipulated   is   Rs.680-1250.     The <\/p>\n
    petitioners   possessed   this   qualification   and   were   accordingly <\/p>\n
    appointed.     Petitioner   No.   1   was   holding   a   Post   Graduate <\/p>\n
    qualification.     The   Circular   dated   26.05.1992   issued   by   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government on division of pay-scales shows post of Lecturers in two <\/p>\n
    pay-scales.   One post is in pay-scale of Rs.600-950 and another in <\/p>\n
    the pay-scale of Rs.680-1250.  The pay-scale of Rs.680-1250 and Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    600-950 are revised on 01.01.1986 to Rs.2250-3700.  The pay-scale <\/p>\n
    of Workshop Superintendent does not figure in Appendix 1 with this <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            19<\/span><\/p>\n
    Government   Resolution.     This   revision   is   in   accordance   with   the <\/p>\n
    communication dated 20.09.1989 issued by the Principal Secretary <\/p>\n
    of Respondent No. 3.  That communication recommends pay-scale of <\/p>\n
    Rs.700-1300 for the post of Lecturer.  For Senior Lecturers, A.I.C.T.E.\n<\/p>\n
    had   noticed   that   there   were   no   uniform   scales   and   had <\/p>\n
    recommended new scale of Rs.3000-5000.  For Heads of Department <\/p>\n
    or Lecturer Selection Grade, pay-scale of Rs.1100-1600 is shown by <\/p>\n
    A.I.C.T.E. with remarks that there were no uniform pay-scales.  The <\/p>\n
    proposed   new   scales   by   A.I.C.T.E.   was   Rs.3700-5300.     The   State <\/p>\n
    Government in above mentioned Appendix I has shown revised pay-\n<\/p>\n
    scales   of   Rs.3000-4500   to   Lecturers   (Senior   Grade)   and   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    3700-5300   to   Lecturers   (Selection   Grade).     For   Heads   of <\/p>\n
    Department, State Government has shown existing pay-scale of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    1000-1500 and revised pay-scale from 01.01.1986 as recommended <\/p>\n
    by A.I.C.T.E. i.e. Rs.3700-5300.  The petitioners were recruited in the <\/p>\n
    pay-scale of Rs.680-1250 and that pay-scale has been revised to Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    2200-3700   by   State   Government   in   the   case   of   Lecturers.     The <\/p>\n
    communication   dated   20.12.1997   sent   by   Desk   Officer   to   the <\/p>\n
    Director   of   Technical   Education   records   that   Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendents   were   also   working   in   the   pay-scale   of   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    2200-3700.  Thus, from 01.01.1986, pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 has <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                              20<\/span><\/p>\n
    been extended to the petitioners.   This, therefore, shows that after <\/p>\n
    said   pay-scale   was   extended   to   the   petitioners   from   01.01.1986, <\/p>\n
    there   was   an   intervening  pay-scale   of  Rs.3000-4500   and  then   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    3700-5300.  The petitioners claimed this pay-scale of Rs.3700-5300 <\/p>\n
    applicable to the Lecturers (Senior Grade) or Heads of Department, <\/p>\n
    thereby   stepping   over   pay-scale   of   Rs.3000-4500   applicable   to <\/p>\n
    Lecturers (Senior Grade)and those qualifications.\n<\/p>\n
    17.<\/p>\n
                  The   A.I.C.T.E.   has   prescribed   qualifications   also   along <\/p>\n
    with its communication dated 20.09.1989.   Those qualifications for <\/p>\n
    Lecturers are First Class Bachelor Degree or then M.Sc. First class, <\/p>\n
    qualifying in All India Examination and selection through prescribed <\/p>\n
    selection   procedure.     For   Senior   Lecturers,   though   qualifications <\/p>\n
    were same, five years experience as Lecturer was held essential.  M.\n<\/p>\n
    Tech.  degree  or Ph.D.  degree  was also  held sufficient.    Insofar  as <\/p>\n
    Head   of   Department   is   concerned,   First   class   Master’s   degree   or <\/p>\n
    Ph.D.   degree   is   held  essential.     Similarly,   five   years  experience   in <\/p>\n
    teaching   is   also   essential.     There   recommendations   nowhere <\/p>\n
    expressly make reference to the post of Workshop Superintendent.\n<\/p>\n
    State   Government   has   on   26.05.1992   while   implementing   these <\/p>\n
    recommendations,   decided   to   implement   the   same   with   some <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                               21<\/span><\/p>\n
    modifications in the scales of pay.   The revised pay-scales are held <\/p>\n
    applicable to teachers who fulfilled required qualifications laid down <\/p>\n
    by   A.I.C.T.E.     Clause   8   of   that   Scheme   points   out   details   of   the <\/p>\n
    qualifications   as   also   experience   required  as  given   in   Appendix   V.\n<\/p>\n
    Clause   9   expressly   mentions   that   candidates   fulfilling   minimum <\/p>\n
    qualifications prescribed for the posts of Teachers would be eligible <\/p>\n
    for grant of revised pay-scales.\n<\/p>\n
    18.<\/p>\n
                  On   22.11.1993   State   Government   has   modified   these <\/p>\n
    requirements and noted that its resolution would be applicable to <\/p>\n
    existing   technical   staff   such   as   Principal,   Heads   of   Department, <\/p>\n
    Selection Grade\/ Senior Lecturers\/ Lecturers who were appointed by <\/p>\n
    Competent Authority prior to 20.09.1989 by exempting them from <\/p>\n
    acquiring revised educational qualifications.\n<\/p>\n
    19.           The issue of qualifications need not be gone into in more <\/p>\n
    details by us.  The petitioners have been given revised salary in the <\/p>\n
    pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 from 01.01.1986.  It is not the case of the <\/p>\n
    petitioners   that   at   the   time   of   their   recruitment   as   Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendent,   they   were   holding   qualifications   necessary   for <\/p>\n
    appointment as Heads of Department.  The Norms and Standards for <\/p>\n
    Polytechnics (Diploma Programmes) issued by All India Council for <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                              22<\/span><\/p>\n
    Technical Education on August 1990 nowhere carry reference to any <\/p>\n
    statutory   provision   under   which   the   same   have   been   formulated.\n<\/p>\n
    The perusal thereof reveals that in clause 6.1.5, categories included <\/p>\n
    in staff pattern are mentioned.  Principal and Teaching staff has been <\/p>\n
    shown as Category I and Workshop staff has been shown as Category <\/p>\n
    II.  Clause 6.1.6 then shows Teaching staff cadre.  The lowest post in <\/p>\n
    hierarchy   is   shown   as   that   of   Lecturer   with   next   higher   post   as <\/p>\n
    Senior   Lecturer.     Head   of   Department\/   Senior   Lecturer   (Selection <\/p>\n
    Grade)   is   placed   above   him   and   at   the   top   appears   the   post   of <\/p>\n
    Principal.   Thereafter there is a note which reads “the Training and <\/p>\n
    Placement   Officer   and   Workshop   Superintendent   will   be   equal   in <\/p>\n
    cadre to Head of Department”.  These, norms also prescribe essential <\/p>\n
    qualifications for Head of Department.  These qualifications are not <\/p>\n
    different   than   what   we   have   noted   while   making   reference   to <\/p>\n
    communication   dated   20.09.1989   issued   by   A.I.C.T.E.     Similar <\/p>\n
    qualifications also figure for Lecturer and Senior Lecturer.   Specific <\/p>\n
    qualifications   for   the   post   of   Workshop   Superintendent   are   not <\/p>\n
    separately mentioned anywhere.  These norms also show the duties <\/p>\n
    and responsibilities of Teachers of Polytechnics.\n<\/p>\n
    20.           Our   attention   has   been   invited   to   clause   6.2.3   which <\/p>\n
    deals   with   Workshop   staff.     The   categories   of   workshop   staff   are <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                             23<\/span><\/p>\n
    Workshop Superintendent.   Below it is placed the post of Foreman <\/p>\n
    Instructor,   Workshop   Instructor   then   Workshop   Attendant.     6.2.4 <\/p>\n
    deals   with   Workshop   Superintendent.     It   is   mentioned   that   he   is <\/p>\n
    Head   of   all   Workshops   in   Polytechnics   and   is   responsible   to   the <\/p>\n
    Principal   in   all   matters   connected   with   the   Workshop   instruction, <\/p>\n
    proper utilization of men, material and machines and maintenance <\/p>\n
    in Workshops and services in various departments.  At the end, again <\/p>\n
    sentence “he will be in cadre of Head of Department” appears.  His <\/p>\n
    job description is also given and that job description is at Annexure F <\/p>\n
    with   writ   petition.     The   perusal   of   Annexure-F   shows   that   it   is <\/p>\n
    claimed   to   be   copy   of   some   Annexure-I   and   it   has   got   heading <\/p>\n
    “Teaching   Load   of   Workshop   Superintendent   for   odd   and   even <\/p>\n
    term”.  Said Annexure or workload is not forming part of Norms and <\/p>\n
    Standards for  Polytechnics  mentioned above.    We have, therefore, <\/p>\n
    pointed out this position to the learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    The perusal of Writ Petition particularly para 8 shows that it is filed <\/p>\n
    as part and parcel of Table X.  Table X is part of earlier Annexure i.e. <\/p>\n
    Annexure   E   which   is   nothing   but   Norms   and   Standards   of <\/p>\n
    Polytechnics.\n<\/p>\n
    21.          Perusal of original book containing Norms and Standards <\/p>\n
    of Polytechnics shows that said Annexure does not form part of Table <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                               24<\/span><\/p>\n
    X also.  In petition, it is mentioned that in Table X, post of Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendent is  conferred with  pay-scale  of  Rs.3700-5700.   The <\/p>\n
    perusal of Table X which deals with staff salaries reveals that it is at <\/p>\n
    page   No.   57   of   Norms   and   post   of   Workshop   Superintendent   is <\/p>\n
    shown   at   Sr.   No.   2   along   with   the   post   of   Head   of   Department, <\/p>\n
    Senior   Lecturer   (Selection   Grade),   Workshop   Superintendent, <\/p>\n
    Training and Placement Officer.  The post of Senior Lecturer appears <\/p>\n
    at Sr. No. 3 with pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 and post of Lecturer is at <\/p>\n
    Sr. No. 4 i.e. the last cadre in pay-scale of Rs.2000-4000.\n<\/p>\n
    22.           After   these   norms   issued   in   August   1990,   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government has issued its resolution dated 26.05.1992 wherein it <\/p>\n
    has extended pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 to Lecturers and as already <\/p>\n
    noted by us, State Government has done so with some modifications <\/p>\n
    in scales of pay.  There is no challenge to these modifications.\n<\/p>\n
    23.           The petitioners claimed that they are from teaching staff <\/p>\n
    and equivalent to Head of Department and hence they are entitled to <\/p>\n
    pay-scale of Rs.3,700-5300.   They are not claiming any other pay-\n<\/p>\n
    scale or any other advantage.     The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex <\/p>\n
    Court   in   the   case   of  State   of   Bihar   and   others   .vrs.   Bihar   State <\/p>\n
    Workshop Superintendents Federation and others reported at  1993 <\/p>\n
    Supp (2) SCC 368, needs to be appreciated in this background.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                             25<\/span><\/p>\n
    24.          In the said judgment, there was an earlier petition filed <\/p>\n
    by one Shri Gupta, a Workshop Superintendent claiming himself to <\/p>\n
    be a teaching employee, and therefore, the entitlement to UGC pay-\n<\/p>\n
    scale.   It was allowed in part, and Letters Patent Appeal against it <\/p>\n
    was   also   disposed   of   after   noticing   the   decision   of   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government   to   implement   the   UGC   pay-scales   for   employees   of <\/p>\n
    Polytechnic.         Thus   the   UGC   pay-scale   of   Rs.1200-1900   was <\/p>\n
    extended to him from 01.04.1973.   S.L.P. preferred by Government <\/p>\n
    of Bihar was dismissed in motion as the Hon’ble Apex Court found <\/p>\n
    no   sufficient   cause   for   condoning   the   delay   in   filing   the   same.\n<\/p>\n
    Before   the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in   challenge   to   subsequent   orders <\/p>\n
    passed   by   the   High   Court,   contention   of   State   of   Bihar   was,   as <\/p>\n
    Workshop   Superintendents   were   not   holding   teaching   post,   there <\/p>\n
    was no question of extending UGC  pay-scales to them.   The Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex   Court   in   this   background   in   paragraph   no.6   has   noted   the <\/p>\n
    contentions of respondents before it and a letter dated 12.04.1959 <\/p>\n
    sent by the AICTE   to all State Governments equating the post of <\/p>\n
    Workshop Superintendent with assistant professor in pay-scale of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    650-1150 in engineering colleges and that of a lecturer in pay-scale <\/p>\n
    of   Rs.350-850   in   polytechnic   conducting   diploma   courses.     In <\/p>\n
    paragraph   no.7,   qualifications   laid   down   by   the   AITCE   on <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            26<\/span><\/p>\n
    10.10.1966 for teaching staff have also been noted.   For Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendent,   qualification   noted   is   First   Class   Diploma   in <\/p>\n
    Engineering with 8 years experience or Second Class Degree with 5 <\/p>\n
    years experience.  It was further pointed out that there were  only 15 <\/p>\n
    Workshop Superintendents who would get the   benefit, if the pay-\n<\/p>\n
    scales as recommended by the AICTE were extended.   The Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex Court has noted that it was a dying cadre and in Bihar College <\/p>\n
    of   Engineering,     Patna   and   R.I.T.   Jamshedpur   the   Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendent   were   granted   pay-scales     of   Assistant   Professor   as <\/p>\n
    per UGC.  In paragraph no.8 the Hon’ble Apex Court has found that <\/p>\n
    AICTE   and   other   authorities   were   treating   the   post   of   Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendent as teaching post and had fixed them in the pay-scale <\/p>\n
    equivalent to Associate Professor.  Then the Hon’ble Apex Court has <\/p>\n
    observed that “so far as this category of respondents is concerned, it is  <\/p>\n
    a dying cadre, and even if in terms, they are not entitled to grant of  <\/p>\n
    UGC scale which can only be made applicable in case of a teaching staff  <\/p>\n
    serving in the colleges run by the University, we find no justification so <\/p>\n
    far as the respondents are concerned, not to allow them the benefit of  <\/p>\n
    the pay-scale at least equivalent to the post of assistant professors.”\n<\/p>\n
    25.          Thus, in view of the historical background and terms and <\/p>\n
    conditions of service and pay-scales which remained applicable to <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            27<\/span><\/p>\n
    the respondents for a considerable long period of time, the Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex   Court   upheld   the   revised   pay-scale   of   Assistant   Professors <\/p>\n
    (senior   Scale)   Rs.   3000-100-3500-125-5000   to   the   respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    This has been done in order to do complete justice.    Thus, finding <\/p>\n
    recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court no where expressly state that <\/p>\n
    said post of Workshop Superintendent were held as equivalent to the <\/p>\n
    post of associate professors (senior scale).   On the contrary due to <\/p>\n
    the long standing practice in State of Bihar, the terms and conditions <\/p>\n
    of service and as it was a dying cadre, in order to do complete justice <\/p>\n
    that pay-scale has been extended to the Workshop Superintendents.\n<\/p>\n
    It is to be noted that the said pay scale of associate professor was as <\/p>\n
    per the recommendations of the UGC and State of Bihar had already <\/p>\n
    accepted   to   implement   the   same   for   teaching   employees   of <\/p>\n
    Polytechnic   and   Engineering   Colleges.   Said   Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendents required  superior qualifications.  In facts before us, <\/p>\n
    no UGC pay-scales as such is pointed out or pressed into service and <\/p>\n
    qualifications expected are also not of same level.\n<\/p>\n
    26.          The   pay-scale   of   lecturer   as   revised   on   01.01.1986   is <\/p>\n
    2200-3700   and   pay-scale   of   Lecturer   [senior   scale]   is   3000-4500.\n<\/p>\n
    Pay   scale   of   Lecturer   [selection   grade]   is   3700-5300   as   per <\/p>\n
    government resolution dated 26.05.1992.   Thus exact identical pay <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                              28<\/span><\/p>\n
    scale comparable with one awarded by the Hon’ble Apex Court is <\/p>\n
    that of Lecturer [senior scale].  In State of Bihar that pay scale was <\/p>\n
    3000-5000, while in the State of Maharashtra  it was 3000-4500.  It <\/p>\n
    is to be noted that the pay-scale for Head of the Department also <\/p>\n
    began from 3700 and was same as that of Lecturer [selection grade].\n<\/p>\n
    The Hon’ble Apex Court was not required to look into the  claim that <\/p>\n
    Workshop Superintendents are in the cadre of Head of Department <\/p>\n
    and   hence,   are   entitled   to   pay   scale   of   3700-5300.     It   is   not <\/p>\n
    necessary   to   go   into   more   details   of   said   matter   at   this   stage.\n<\/p>\n
    However, it needs to be pointed out here that, if Lecturer [senior <\/p>\n
    scale] is shown as Senior Lecturer, AICTE Norms in August, 1990 <\/p>\n
    prescribed  pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 for said post and the Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Apex Court in  State of Bihar and others .vrs. Bihar State Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendents Federation and others  (supra) has given that pay <\/p>\n
    scale to respondents before it.\n<\/p>\n
    27.           The   qualifications   prescribed   for   Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendents   prevailing   at   the   time   of   entry   of   petitioners   in <\/p>\n
    service   are   not   in   dispute.       The   statutory  regulations  prescribing <\/p>\n
    qualifications have come into picture only on 05.03.2010.   Faculty <\/p>\n
    norms   which   form   part   of   the   said   regulations  and   lay   down   the <\/p>\n
    minimum   qualification   and   requirement   of   experience   etc.,   show <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                             29<\/span><\/p>\n
    same   qualification   for   Lecturer   and   Workshop   Superintendents.\n<\/p>\n
    These statutory regulations when viewed in the background of the <\/p>\n
    history   which   we   have   noted,   it   is   apparent   that   though   the <\/p>\n
    Workshop   Superintendents   have   been   treated   as   part   of   teaching <\/p>\n
    staff, they have not been treated earlier either as Lecturer or then as <\/p>\n
    Lecturer (Senior Scale).  The Lecture  (Selection Grade) and Head of <\/p>\n
    Department are the posts at top of the hierarchy.  A person in order <\/p>\n
    to become eligible for consideration as Lecturer was required to hold <\/p>\n
    better\/superior   qualification   then   the   post   of   Workshop <\/p>\n
    Superintendent.     In   this   situation,   mere   communication   from   the <\/p>\n
    AICTE   stating   the   Workshop   Superintendent   is   equal   in   cadre   of <\/p>\n
    Head   of   Department   or   then   their   inclusion   in   AICTE   norms   of <\/p>\n
    August, 1990  in Table 10 as a part of teaching staff along with the <\/p>\n
    Head of Department, Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Trainee <\/p>\n
    and Placement Officer, does not by itself entitle them to the scale of <\/p>\n
    Head of Department.  The Workshop Superintendents, envisaged in <\/p>\n
    August, 1990 Norms by the AICTE are persons who  can be said as <\/p>\n
    equal to Head of Department or Senior Lecturer [Selection Grade] <\/p>\n
    not   only  because   of   pay   scale,   but   because   of  better   qualification <\/p>\n
    also.   Effort of petitioners to claim pay scale of Head of Department <\/p>\n
    merely because they are equated with cadre in Head of Department, <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            30<\/span><\/p>\n
    is, unsustainable.     Mere mention that Workshop Superintendent is <\/p>\n
    treated at part with Head of Department or Senior Lecturer is not <\/p>\n
    sufficient.  It is well settled that even while extending equal pay for <\/p>\n
    equal work, difference in qualification is held sufficient  to deny this <\/p>\n
    benefit.     Here   also   “mention”   and   “equation”   are   artificial   and <\/p>\n
    became necessary, may be, only for administrative convenience.\n<\/p>\n
    28.          Effort of petitioners   is to show that because of AICTE <\/p>\n
    recommendations  their pay scales stood revised to 3700-5300 with <\/p>\n
    the pay scale of Head of Department.  It is to be noted that there was <\/p>\n
    no   statutory   instruction   till   05.03.2010   in   this   respect.       The <\/p>\n
    Government   of   Maharashtra   in   terms   on   26.05.1992   adopted   the <\/p>\n
    AICTE Norms with some modifications in pay scales and petitioners <\/p>\n
    were given pay scale of Rs.2200-3700 i.e. equivalent to the Lecturer <\/p>\n
    from 01.01.1986. Neither judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State <\/p>\n
    of Bihar (supra)  nor any Norms\/Standards introduced petitioners in <\/p>\n
    superior cadre. In this situation, we find no substance in the efforts <\/p>\n
    of   petitioners   to   compare   themselves   with   either   Head   of <\/p>\n
    Department or Lecturer (Selection Grade) to claim their pay-scale.\n<\/p>\n
    29.          The Hon’ble Apex Court has in 1995 [4] SCC 104 (State <\/p>\n
    of   T.N.   And   another   .vers.   Adhiyaman   Educational   &   Research <\/p>\n
    Institute   and   others)   considered   the   issue   of   powers   with   State <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                             31<\/span><\/p>\n
    Government   to   grant   and   withdraw   permission   to   start   an <\/p>\n
    institution, after coming into force of All India Council for Technical <\/p>\n
    Education   Act,   1987   i.e.   1987   Act.     All   observations   therein   are <\/p>\n
    because of a statutory provision occupying the field vide 1987 Act, <\/p>\n
    and the State enactment i.e. T.N. Private Colleges (Regulation) Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Articles 246, 248 and 254 of  the  Constitution  of  India have  been <\/p>\n
    found to be determinative and   Entry no.66 in Schedule-VII List 1 <\/p>\n
    (Union List) is interpreted.   Strong reliance has been placed by the <\/p>\n
    learned counsel for petitioners on conclusions recorded in paragraph <\/p>\n
    no.41(i)   by   the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court.     However,   the   Hon’ble   Apex <\/p>\n
    Court has found that the expression “coordination” used in entry no.\n<\/p>\n
    66 means  harmonization,  with a view to  forge  a uniform pattern <\/p>\n
    for a concerted action according to certain design, Scheme or plan <\/p>\n
    for development.  It is to be noted that therefore, it includes action <\/p>\n
    not   only   for   removing   all   disparities   in   standards,   but   also   for <\/p>\n
    preventing   the   occurrence   of   such   disparities.     The   further <\/p>\n
    conclusions, particularly [v]  and [vi], also show situation in which <\/p>\n
    State authority   is not prevented from laying   higher standards or <\/p>\n
    qualifications.     When State Authority de-recognizes or disqualifies <\/p>\n
    an institution for not satisfying the standards or qualifications laid <\/p>\n
    down by it, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if such institution <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            32<\/span><\/p>\n
    satisfies the norms and recommendations laid down by the Central <\/p>\n
    Authority,   the   State   Government   acts   illegally.     It   is   therefore, <\/p>\n
    obvious that when there was a binding law occupying the field and <\/p>\n
    State Government wanted to do something inconsistent with it, the <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Apex Court has found it unsustainable.  Here that is not the <\/p>\n
    position.  No binding law was available, at least till 05.03.2010.  The <\/p>\n
    AICTE laid down some norms in August, 1990 but then as already <\/p>\n
    observed   by   us   above,   those   norms   have   no   statutory   force.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, prescriptions therein did not and do not confer any right <\/p>\n
    upon petitioners to claim pay-scale of Rs.3700-5300\/-\n<\/p>\n
    30.          As we have found that there was no service condition, <\/p>\n
    settled   or   otherwise,   which     could   have     forced   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government to extend the pay scale of 3700-5300 to petitioners, it is <\/p>\n
    obvious that there is   no change in their service conditions.     The <\/p>\n
    arguments   of   learned   Counsel   for   petitioners,   that   Regulations   of <\/p>\n
    2010   are   prospective   and   cannot   affect   the   pay   scales   already <\/p>\n
    determined, are   therefore, misconceived.   Reliance upon judgment <\/p>\n
    reported in the case of  Grid Corporation of Orissa and others .vrs.\n<\/p>\n
    Rasananda Das  (supra) and in case of D.P. Sharma and others .vrs.\n<\/p>\n
    Union of India and another (supra), is therefore, misconceived.  We <\/p>\n
    have already made reference to law as expanded in those judgments, <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            33<\/span><\/p>\n
    briefly  above  and it  is sufficient  to reveal that reliance  upon  it  is <\/p>\n
    misconceived.\n<\/p>\n
    31.          Hence, in this situation, we do not find any merit in the <\/p>\n
    petition.     Hence,   rejection   of   claim   as   made   by   petitioners   by <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.5     Maharashtra   Administrative   Tribunal,   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    interfered with.   Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the <\/p>\n
    circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                 A. P. BHANGALE, J                 B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J\n                           \n    joshi\n       \n    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:47:21 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNarendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-27T20:55:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-27T20:55:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4225,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-27T20:55:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-27T20:55:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-27T20:55:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011"},"wordCount":4225,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011","name":"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-27T20:55:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-manoharrao-ambadkar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177435","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}