Om Prakash Poplai (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs University of Delhi

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2002 which had endorsed the findings of the trial judge dated 01.2.1998 whereby the suit of the Plaintiff Om Prakash Poplai had been dismissed.

2 The factual matrix is as follows:

i. Plaintiff Om Prakash Poplai was a part time lecturer in the faculty of law in the University of Delhi for period 24.7.1971 to 29.7.1976. On 29.7.1976 Plaintiff was selected to the post of a whole time lecturer. Contention of the Plaintiff is that the period of five years spent as part time lecturer had not been considered by the Defendant department for giving him three increments at the time of his selection as a whole-time lecturer on 29.7.1976; this was in spite of recommendations of the selection committee. This recommendation of the Selection Committee was illegally ignored.

ii. Contention of the Defendant was that there was nothing on record to show that the Selection Committee had granted the said advance increments to the Plaintiff; the experience of a part time lecturer who was otherwise a practicing advocate cannot be equated with a whole-time lecturer of the University; considerations are distinct and different; a fifteen years experience is required for a whole-time lecturer; Plaintiff did not have the qualified experience.

iii. Initially eight issues had been framed by the trial court. Thereafter two more additional issues were framed. The first additional issue related to the letter of Professor Upendra Baxi (the then Dean of the Faculty of Law) dated20.11.1976 on the basis of which the Plaintiff is claiming the relief in the present suit and which is the thrust of the claim of the Plaintiff for his relief in the said suit. Suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by the trial judge.

iv. The relevant extract of the letter of Professor Upendra Baxi dated 20.11.1976 Ex.P-10 reads as follows:

I distinctly recall that the entire committee discussed with Shri Poplai during the interview the minimum stating salary he would accept and noted that he wanted a minimum of three increments added to his basis salary.

v. Court was of the view that even presuming that there was such a recommendation by Professor Upendra Baxi he being a member of the Selection Committee only and not being the Appointing Authority such a recommendation was not binding upon the University.

vi. This finding of the trial judge was affirmed in appeal on 29.7.2002. The finding of the trial judge was endorsed; it was held that the recommendations of Selection Committee are not binding.

This is a second appeal. It was admitted and on 30.11.2006 the following substantial question of law was formulated:

Whether the first appellate court failed to itself examine the evidence on record, to give its own reasons on issues of fact and law which were in controversy before the trial court and also failed to give its decision on the alternate relief sought by amendment in the plaint during the appeal?

Admittedly, the Plaintiff was a part-time lecturer with the University in the Faculty of Law. The considerations for appointment to a full time lecturer are distinct and different. There is no dispute to this proposition. It is also not disputed that while teaching as a part-time lecturer the Petitioner was otherwise in the legal profession and a practicing lawyer. Perusal of Ex.P-10 also shows that member of the Selection Committee which included Professor Upendra Baxi had probably arrived at some kind of a consensus that three increments were inadvertently omitted to be mentioned while recommending appointment of the Plaintiff as a full time lecturer. The Selection Committee is a body distinct and different from the Executive body which is the Appointing Authority of the Delhi University. It was for the Appointing Authority alone to have taken a decision on the recommendations made by the Selection Committee; they would not per se binding; they may or may not have been considered. The Appellant had also relied upon the office noting recommending his case for three increments since inception, however, the further noting i.e. of the Grievance Committee Ex.PW-35/5 had noted that incase a part time lecturer was treated at par with a full-time lecturer the benefits would be extended to the Appellant/Plaintiff Om Prakash Poplai. The Grievance Committee had left this question open. The Executive Council in its meeting dated 05.01.1981 vide Resolution No. 584 had, however, on the benefit of increments to be given to Assistant Lecturers and if the same should be extended to part-time lecturers in the School of Correspondence Courses had not accepted this recommendation. The ultimate decision lay with the Executive Council. The Executive Council had not extended this benefit of advance increments given to Assistant Lecturers to be extended to part-time lectures in the School of Correspondence Courses.

In this back ground since this recommendation of three advance increments was not granted to the part time lecturers at the time of their appointment as a fulltime lecturer, suit of the Plaintiff was rightly dismissed. The trial judge had also rightly noted that there is no question of discrimination of one class qua the other; there is no violation of the right to equality as has been pleaded before it under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no fault in the impugned judgment. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. There being no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed.