Har Govind vs State of M.P. and Others

K.M. Agarwal, J.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner claims a direction to the respondents to treat him on the post of a Professor with effect from 1-4-19-9 as per resolution dated 29-3-1979 (Annexure P-1) of the respondent no 3 and to pay him the salary and extend other benefits of the post from that date.

The petitioner was in the employment of the respondent no. 4, a private College run by the respondent no. 3, since 1970 and was working as Assistant Professor in the law faculty. The College was getting maintenance grant from the Government and/or the University Grants Commission (in short, the "U. G. C"), which is respondent no. 2 in the petition. The M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, (in short, the "Act"), came into force from 1-8-1978, and the M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979, (in short, the "Recruitment Rules"), framed u/s 10 of the Act, came into force from 16-5-1979. The provisions of the Act and those of the Recruitment Rules were applicable to the institution where the petitioner was in service, as it was getting maintenance grant from U. G C. By resolution dated 29-3-1979 (Annexure P-1), the Governing Body of the College decided to promote the petitioner to the post of a Professor and accordingly applied to the respondent no. 2 for according sanction for such promotion by letter dated 26-4-1979 (Annexure P-2) written by the Principal. The sanction was refused. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition for the said reliefs.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition has no substance and deserves to be dismissed. Section 2 (i) of the Act says :

''Teacher'' means a teacher of an institution in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government or the Ayog, as the cast may be, to the institutions and includes any other teacher employed with the prior approval of the authority specified by the State Government in this behalf, in fulfilment of the conditions of recognition/affiliation of an institution or of a new subject or a higher class or a new section in the existing class by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education or the University or the Ayog as the case may be, and shown on the pay roll of the institution against a post as being in the employment as such does not include a teacher whose appointment is dis-approved under clause (c) of Section 6.

And Section 2 (f) provides :--

''Maintenance grant'' means grant payable to the Institution by the State Government or the Ayog, as the case may be, for maintenance.

Accordingly the maintenance grant, though paid in respect of the employment of teachers, is given to the institutions and not to the teachers and, therefore, if there was refusal to pay maintenance grant in respect of the petitioner''s employment in the higher post of a Professor, the institution alone must be deemed to be aggrieved and affected by such refusal. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the refusal or to claim the grant for the institution. Assuming that the petitioner was also aggrieved by the said refusal, as his appointment to and the salary for the higher post were dependent on the approval of the U. G C., we find no case for granting the reliefs claimed in the petition. There was no post of a Professor in the law faculty. If there was necessity for such a post, but no finances, the post could not be created and filled in without approval of the authority, which was to arrange the finances. In the present case, the finance was to be provided by the U. G. C. in the form of or by enhancing the maintenance grant payable to the institution run by the respondent no. 3. Without applying for or awaiting the approval of the U. G. C., the post was resolved to be filled in by promoting the petitioner to the said post. It also appears that the respondents 3 and 4 were so anxious, nay determined, to promote the petitioner to the higher post that without service of any order of promotion in pursuance of the resolution dated 29-3-1979 (Annexure P-1), they entertained petitioner''s representations (Annexures P-3 and P-5) for pay fixation on the higher post and started taking steps in that direction, as manifested by the reply dated 31-3-1981 (Annexure P-4) of the Principal, letter dated 5-5-1981 (Annexure P-6) tent to the respondent no. 2 by the Acting Principal of the College and the letter dated 4-1-1982 (Annexure P-7) seat to Registrar of the University by the Principal. In this state of affairs, the argument has no force that the promotion was made or approved by a duly constituted committee as per the College Code or that his name was included in the lists of Professors (Annexures P-19, P-20 and P-21) published by the University. The U. G. C. may not have authority to disapprove appointments having no financial complications, but it has certainly powers to disapprove appointments of teachers creating financial burden on it. The petitioner''s appointment to the higher post created financial burden on the institution and for discharging this burden, the institution required increase in its Maintenance grant. Such increase could not be claimed as a matter of course or on mere asking.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances, the posts of Professors were sanctioned to other institutions, viz., those of Ganj Basoda and Vidisha and, therefore, withholding of such sanction to the institution run by the respondent no. 3 amounted to arbitrary discriminatory treatment given to it. It was further argued that Section 2 (i) of the Act referred to the teachers employed "with the prior approval of the authority specified by the State Government", but on the date of the petitioner''s selection, the Recruitment Rules had not come into force and, therefore, the procedure laid down in statute 28 framed under the College Code was required to be followed in the matter of appointments of teachers. That procedure having been followed in the appointment of the petitioner on a higher post, the maintenance grant could not be refused by refusing to approve the petitioner''s selection for and appointment to the higher post

The arguments deserve to be rejected. Firstly, if there was any discriminatory treatment to the respondents 3 and 4, it was for them to challenge the action. Secondly, for the reasons given in the return filed on behalf of the respondent no 2. it cannot be said that there was any discrimination in refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner to a higher post. Thirdly, there was no appointment but only selection for appointment to a higher post, as would appear from the resolution dated 29-3-1979 (Annexure P-1). Lastly, if equality clause provided in the Constitution is made so elastic as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there would be no end to claimants for maintenance grants from the U. G. C. As to the second part of the argument, the procedure for appointment or for selection of candidates followed is meaningless, so long as the existence of post on the date of selection or appointment is not shown. As earlier stated, there was no existing post of a Professor, or sanction for creation of a fresh post of a Professor on the date of the alleged selection or appointment and, therefore, the argument must be held to De mis-directed.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this petition The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.