AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application made by the Writ petitioner after the judgment was pronounced seeking modification in the directions issued by this Court.
I had directed that the concerned sales Tax Authorities in Karnataka should transmit the amount paid by the petitioner-company under a mistake of law to the corresponding authorities in Tamil Nadu State. That was the prayer made by the counsel at the time of arguments. But, it how transpires that when the judgment was reserved, in the interregnum before the order was passed, the petitioner-company has paid on 31.3.1982 the sums due to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Authorities and it is submitted that there is no question of any balance payable to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. As taxes have now been paid in both the States, on the same transactions, it is just and necessary that a direction may be made to the Ist respondent to refund the amount paid by the company for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77 in respect of the payments made to Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Authorities under the Central Sales Tax Act for the relevant years regarding the same transactions. The certificate is also produced.
I am satisfied with the submission made. The petitioner is entitled to the modification and I therefore now direct that the respondents should refund the amounts paid by the petitioner-company to the Karnataka Sales Tax Authorises in respect of the bus bodybuilding transactions for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77. My earlier order in this Writ petition will standi modified accordingly. should appoint a qualified person to teach Sanskrit for PUC Classes."
By the above endorsement, it was made clear that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification. By a further endorsement dated 5-12-1973 the petitioner was informed that he might continue at his own risk until final orders were issued regarding the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Ultimately the petitioner was informed (vide Annexure-Q) that there was no provision to appoint a person who held Vidwat Uttama qualification to the cadre of Lecturer though it states that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer-There is no dispute that the said endorsement was issued on the representation of the petitioner dated 17-7-1980 (Annexure-P) and both read together it clearly meant that the view taken by the department was that the qualification held by the petitioner was not equivalent to the prescribed qualification and, therefore, he cannot continue in the post of Lecturer.
Therefore the only question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the view taken by the respondents, that the petitioner did not possess the equivalent qualification is well founded. The qualification for the post of Lecturer in the Junior Colleges was fixed by means of an executive order of the State Government. This is incorporated in a circular dated 18 4-1974 (Annexure-L) issued by the Director of Pre-University Education. It reads- "Sanskrit: Should be a holder of a II Class Master''s Degree in the respective subject of a University established by law in India or any other qualification recognised by Government as equivalent thereto."
According to the above provision, a person holding II Class Master''s Degree or any other qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto alone could be appointed to the post of Lecturer. The word ''equivalent qualification'' is defined under rule 2(c) of the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957. It reads- "''equivalent qualification'' means a qualification notified by the Government to be equivalent to a qualification prescribed in respect of any post in the rules regulating recruitment to any State Civil Service."
Therefore when any particular qualification is prescribed for any post in any of the services of the State and it is further stated that a person possessing an equivalent qualification is also eligible for recruitment, a person possessing any qualification other than the specified qualification becomes eligible only when the State Government declares that such qualification is equivalent to the prescribed qualification.
The case of the petitioner is that the qualification held by him has been declared equivalent to the Master''s Degree. In support of the above submission, he relied on a letter written by the Government of India (Annexure-A). It reads:
To,
Education Secretaries of all the State Governments/Union Territory Governments/Administrations, and Registrars of all Universities.
Sub: Equivalence of Sanskrit Examinations.
Sir,
I am directed to say that the Central Sanskrit Board which advises the Government on all matters relating to the development of Sanskrit have recommended, a) That it may be impressed upon all the Universities that they should employ at least one traditional Sanskrit Scholar and the Scholar so employed should enjoy the same status and pay-scales as his counter parts trained on modern lines with equivalence degrees.
b) That the employment of traditional Sanskrit Pandits in High/Higher Secondary Schools/Colleges should also be given due encouragement. Teachers so employed should be treated on a par with other teachers possessing equivalent qualifications of the general educational set up.
With regard to this, the Board has suggested an interim equivalence of traditional Sanskrit examinations in the general educational set-up.
The suggestions of the Board have been accepted by the Government of India. It would be appreciated if due consideration is given to these suggestions by the State Governments/Union Territory Governments/Administrations/Universities.
"I am also to send herewith a copy of the statement showing the names of the examining bodies, names of Sanskrit examinations conducted by them and the equivalence of the latter with examinations in the general educational set up, for guidance in matters of employment of Sanskrit Pandits in Universities, Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools/Colleges. This ministry may please be informed of the action taken in the matter in due course.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- P.N. Dhir, Dy. Secretary.
Sd/- for Director.
"Statement showing the names of the Examining Bodies, names of Sanskrit Examinations conducted by them and the equivalence of the latter with Examinations in the General Educational set up.
Sl. No. Name of the Examinining body Name of the Examination Equivalent Examination in the General Educational set up
xx xx
Government of Mysore Vidwat Uttama M.A.,
At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner also produced State Government letter dated 13th September 1966. It reads:
"Copy of Government letter No. 82 GSE 66 dated 13th September 1966 from the Secretary to the Government of Mysore, Education Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore addressed to the Director, Kendriya Sanskrit Vidhya-peetha, Tirupathi.
Sub: Recognition of Sanskrit (Shiksha) Diploma (Dip-in-Education) awarded by Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupathi.
Ref: Your letter No. F 2 AC (1-2)/65-66 dt. 7-7-1965 and subsequent letters dt. 20-12-1966.
I am directed to state that this Government have in their OM No. GAD 6 SSR 63 dated 15th June 1965 have directed that such of the Degrees/Diploma/Certificates as are recognised by the Government of India for employment under them should be treated as having been recognised automatically for purpose of employment to the State Services. In view of this Shastri (Shiksha) Diploma awarded by Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupathi, having been recognised by Government of India in the Circular No. F 46-1/63 SU dated 23-1-1964 as equivalent to B.Ed., or B.T., is considered as equivalent to B.Ed., or B.T. Degrees for the purpose of employment in the State Services.
Copy together with a copy of Government of India''s Circular No. F 46/1/63 SU dated 23-1-1964 and its accompaniment forwarded for information and necessary action to:
The Director of Public Instruction in Mysore, Bangalore.
The Director of Collegiate Education in Mysore, Bangalore.
The General Administration Department. (underlining is by me).
A reading of the Central Government letter and the State Government letter clearly indicate that a declaration of equivalence by the Central Government must be deemed to be a declaration made by the State Government also.
At the time of hearing, the petitioner also produced a photostat copy of his certificate relating to Vidwat Uttama Examination. It shows that the petitioner had secured 58% of the maximum marks in the Vidwat Uttama Examination and" he was declared to have passed the Examination in Second Class. Therefore in view of the equivalence the petitioner, who possessed Vidwat Uttama Second Class qualification possessed a qualification equivalent to Master''s Degree Second Class which was the qualification prescribed by the State Government as the minimum qualification for the post of lecturers.
The petitioner has also produced a letter of the Joint Director of Public Instruction, Mysore Division, which indicates that the services of one C. Venkataramana Adiga, who also possessed a qualification similar to the one possessed by the petitioner, had been appointed as lecturer on regular basis. The said document also supports the case of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the stand taken by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed for the post of lecturer is erroneous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner did possess the equivalent qualification, his appointment should be approved from the date of first appointment and he should be given the salary of the post of lecturer from the said date. In this behalf, he submitted that though the petitioner has been working as lecturer, he has been given the pay of a Sanskrit Pandit.
Sri S. V. Narasimhan, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in view of the considerable delay in presenting the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to all the consequential benefits.
From the documents referred to in the order, though as early as on 24-10-1973 (vide Annexure-G) the petitioner was made known that he did not possess the prescribed qualification and therefore he could not be continued as Lecturer and he was actually being given only the salary in the pay-scale fixed for Sanskrit Pandit, he was again told that the matter was under consideration, vide letter dated 3 2 1975 (Annexure-M) and his claim was rejected in July 1980 (vide Annexure-Q). The writ petition was presented on 28-10-1980. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider that it is expedient to restrict the consequential financial benefits for a period of three years prior to the date of presentation of the petition.
Accordingly, I make the following order:
(i) Rule made absolute.
(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to respondents 1 and 2- (a) to approve the appointment of the petitioner as lecturer in Government Junior College, Coondapoor with effect from the date of his appointment; and (b) to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay-scale applicable to the post of lecturer from the date of appointment and to give him all consequential benefits except the difference of salary for the period prior to 1-11-1977.
(iii) No costs.