AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, and,
with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize her services as a
Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Economics in the Lal Bahdur Shastri Government Degree College, Halduchaur, Nainital District from the date of
provincialization of the institute i.e. 06.11.2015; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefit, including salary,
seniority and other benefits, from the date of provincialization of the institute i.e.06.11.2015.
Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the management of the respondent-college on 2.07.2006
inviting applications for appointment to the post of lecturer in economics, the petitioner submitted her application and was selected for appointment to
the post of Lecturer, Economics on 02.08.2006. The approval committee of the Kumaon University accorded approval to her appointment on
7.01.2011. The respondent college was provincialzed by G.O. dated 6.11.2015, and was declared a Government Degree College. By order dated
20.06.2016 the State Government accorded sanction for absorption of teachers in the said college, and sought remarks, from the college management,
in this regard. The Committee of Management informed the State Government that the petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed qualifications to be
considered for appointment to the post of lecturer, since she had secured less than 50% marks in her graduation as against the prescribed minimum
eligibility criteria of 50%.
The petitioner’s services were engaged as a contract lecturer from 6.11.2015 on a monthly remuneration of Rs.35,000/-. While it is not in
dispute that the petitioner worked as a lecturer ever since 06.11.2015, when the institute was provincialized by the Government, her monthly
remuneration of Rs.35,000/- was not paid to her on the ground that, though she continued to work as a lecturer, she had not signed the contract.
Subsequently by G.O. dated 16.12.2016 the norms for appointment/ regularization of lecturers was relaxed, and the minimum required marks was
reduced from 50% to 45%. Consequently, the petitioner also became eligible to be considered for absorption as a lecturer in economics, as she fulfilled
the relaxed norms of having secured more than 45% marks in her graduation. Her services were regularized, more than sixteen months thereafter, by
order dated 18.04.2018.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, consequent on the norms having been relaxed by G.O. dated
16.12.2016, the petitioner became eligible to be appointed as a lecturer in economics; since the institute was provincialized on 06.11.2015, the petitioner
was entitled to be treated as a regular lecturer with effect from that date, and to be paid all her emoluments and other service benefits; the petitioner
was appointed as a lecturer on 02.08.2006 as she had obtained her Phd. degree earlier in the year 2004; and the action of the respondent, in treating
her as a regular government lecturer only from 17.02.2018, is arbitrary and illegal.
On the other hand Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State Govt., would submit that it is only pursuant to the G.O. dated
16.12.2016 that the petitioner became eligible for absorption as a lecturer in economics; she was also required to furnish proof of her having completed
her Phd.; it is only because she submitted proof of having secured Phd., by her letter dated 17.02.2018, was she absorbed as a lecturer from that date,
and not prior thereto; while it is true that the petitioner was working as a lecturer in a government college from the date of provincialization i.e.
06.11.2015, her failure to sign a contract had resulted in her not being paid even this contractual amount; and, having delayed furnishing proof of
having secured her Phd. degree till 17.02.2018, the petitioner cannot seek regularization from a date prior thereto.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s appointment as a lecturer in economics in 2006 was on the basis of her Phd. degree which she obtained
in the year 2004. While the respondents may have been justified in not absorbing her as a lecturer from the date of privincialization i.e. 06.11.2015
since she did not fulfill the prescribed norms of having secured more than 50% marks in her graduation, she was entitled for absorption from
16.12.2016 when the G.O. was issued relaxing the norms, and in lowering the minimum eligibility criteria from 50% to 45% in graduation.
While the petitioner ought to have been absorbed as a lecturer in economics from 16.12.2016, the justification of the respondent, for not doing so, is
that she did not produce proof of her Phd. degree till 17.02.2018. What the respondents appear to have sought from the petitioner was for her to
produce evidence of her having obtained the Phd. degree in terms of the 2016 U.G.C. regulations.
While the petitioner had, no doubt, furnished proof of her Phd. degree only on 17.02.2018, the fact remains that the Phd. degree obtained by her in
the year 2004 was in accordance with the 2016 U.G.C. regulations.
We are satisfied, therefore, that the petitioner was entitled to have her services regularized from 16.12.2016 when a G.O. was issued relaxing the
minimum marks required in graduation from 50% to 45%.
The petitioner shall be treated as having been regularized from 16.12.2016, and shall be paid her salary and other emoluments, which a regular
lecturer is entitled to, from that date.
As it is not in dispute that she continued to work as a lecturer even after the date of provincialization i.e. 06.11.2015, the petitioner shall also be
paid the contractual salary of Rs.35,000/- per month from 06.11.2015 to 16.12.2016 (i.e. for the period before her regularization in terms of the G.O.
dated 16.12.2016). She shall also be extended all consequential benefits such as seniority etc. Payment of the amount, as directed hereinabove, shall
be made to the petitioner with utmost expedition; and, in any event, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.