Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9582 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dr. Vandana Sarswat Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aishwarya Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Birendra Kumar,Sudesh Kumar,Vivek Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai for Agra University and Sri Birendra Kumar for respondent no. 6.
This is an utterly misconceived writ petition.
Petitioner was appointed as Librarian on 13.2.1987 and after her confirmation has continued as Librarian. It appears that a writ petition was filed by the association of librarians in which the benefit of promotional pay scale, admissible to a teacher, was claimed by them. The writ petition was decided on 12.1.2007 observing as under:-
"Taking the holistic view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the members of the petitioner's Association and other petitioners are also entitled for ancillary benefits of UGC like Career Advancement Scheme and other benefits as has been provided to the Teachers and Directors of Physical Education [ now designated as Lecturer in Physical Education] from the date they were given UGC pay scales. The claim of the petitioners for grant of arrears w.e.f. 1.4.1980 has no force as the State Government has given the benefit of revised pay scales to all the employees w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Furthermore, the petitioners have been granted UGC pay scales, during the pendency of the writ petition, by the G.O. dated 29th February, 1996 w.e.f. 1.1.19986. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of arrears w.e.f. 1.4.1980 is rejected.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Government Order dated 29th February, 1996 [ Annexure-47 to the writ petition] issued by the State Government is hereby quashed as far as it relates to the denial of the benefit of Merit Promotion Scheme now termed as ''Career Advancement Scheme'.
The writ petition stands decided in above terms. Costs easy."
As a consequence of the above adjudication, a Government Order has been issued on 31.8.2016 which grants benefit of pay scale admissible to a teacher, to a Librarian also. They have also been allowed promotional pay scale admissible to a teacher. It is on the strength of this Government Order that the petitioner states that she is entitled to officiate as Principal as she is the senior most teacher in the institution. Such claim of the petitioner was directed to be considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2021 and the authorised controller, who happens to be the District Magistrate, Mathura has rejected her claim by holding that the petitioner neither hold the qualification for appointment to the post of teacher nor has she actually worked as a teacher and, therefore, merely because promotional pay scale of a teacher was extended to a librarian, would not mean that the petitioner becomes a teacher so that she is entitled to officiate as Principal. It is this order which is assailed by the petitioner.
At the very outset a question was posed to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether petitioner has ever taught in any class and the answer is 'no'. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioner helps the students by providing them access to books in different subjects and, therefore, in her capacity as Librarian, petitioner ensures decimation of knowledge in all subjects, and therefore, she cannot be treated less than a teacher.
It is also urged that petitioner is entitled to be declared senior to respondent, who is an Associate Professor of Economics in the college concerned.
The college, in the facts of the case, is affiliated to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra and the provisions of the State Universities Act, 1973 as well as the Statute of the University regulates appointment of teachers and Librarian. Chapter-11 of the statues specifies the qualification for appointment of teachers and Librarian in the University and the Colleges. The qualification for a Librarian is distinct from what is specified for a teacher. Statute 11.01(6) contemplates a separate cadre for the Librarian. Their qualification is separate and distinct and the work which is to be performed by these Librarians is also separate and distinct under the Statute.
Merely because parity has been granted in the matter of payment of salary to a Librarian at par with the teacher, would not mean that a Librarian becomes a teacher. Parity of two posts performing different works, with different qualifications, can never be equated at par in matters of seniority or allocation of work. Petitioner neither possess requisite qualification and even if she does possess qualification, she cannot arrogate herself to be a teacher as she has neither been appointed as teacher nor she ever functioned, even for a day as a teacher. Her cadre as Librarian under the statute is, otherwise, separate and distinct from the cadre of teacher in the college.
The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner becomes entitled to officiate as Principal, for such reasons, is utterly misconceived.
Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 n.u.