Petitioner Counsel :- Vivek Raj Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Kuldeep Pati Tripathi Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J Hon'ble S. C. Chaurasia, J (Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh)
1. Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology, Faizabad, in short University, has been established in district Faizabad in pursuance to statutory provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh(Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalya Adhiniyam, 1958 (U.P. Act No.45 of 1958), in short, Act, as amended from time to time.
The controversy under the present writ petition relates to grant of status and pay-scale of Lecturer from 1.1.1986 along with other admissible allowances, increments and post retiral dues, coupled with arrears of salary.
2. The university published an advertisement, No.3 of 1983 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for appointment on the post of Games Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs.300-500 (unrevised). In pursuance to the provisions contained in Chapter XIII of the Act, a selection committee was constituted and in consequence thereof, being successful candidate, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Games Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs.515-860. A copy of the appointment letter dated 12.9.1982 is filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. It has been stated by the petitioner that the post of Games Assistant is also known as Physical Instructor, Assistant Physical Education Superintendent, Instructor Physical Education, Teacher Physical Education, Director, Physical Training, Addl. Director Physical Instructor, Physical Education Superintendent etc in different universities of the State. The nature of job is to arrange games and sports for students, procurement of sports material, maintenance of grounds, arranging inter-se class and college tournament, guide the students about the rules of the games and sports and to impart various skills and techniques to the students for games and sports.
3. Keeping in view the nature of job, it has been pleaded that the petitioner shall be deemed to be teacher under the definition clause of the Act. The State Govt. has issued a circular dated 11.9.1984 (Annexure-4) providing therein that in the universities of the State of U.P, teachers or physical instructors working under different nomenclature are sanctioned the pay-scale of Rs.700-1600.
The petitioner has relied upon the circular dated 11.9.1984. However, Mr. Manik Sinha submits that it is not applicable to the university in question.
A plain reading of the circular also reveals that it applies to the universities, namely, Lucknow, Allahabad, Gorakhpur, Kanpur, Kashi Vidya Peeth, Kumaun Vishwavidyalaya. However, it has not been disputed that the aforesaid circular dated 11.9.1984 in case is made applicable to the university in question, then the petitioner shall be entitled for the same pay-scale and status keeping in view the fact that the nature of job and the assignment is the same.
4. It appears that when the respondent university came to know regarding the aforesaid circular dated 11.9.1984, the then Administrative Officer, Mr. J.P. Srivastava prepared a note dated 5.3.1991 pointing out that in the university, appointment has been made on the post of Games Assistant discharging the same duties who have been given teachers' scale and designation by circular dated 11.9.1984. The administrative officer noted that exclusion of petitioner university by the State Government vide its order dated 2.1.1991 to provide teacher's scale and designation is erroneous. The then Vice Chancellor Mr. Uttam Chandra Upadhyaya, after considering the note of the then Administrative Officer Mr. J.P. Srivastava directed to include the issue in the agenda of Board of Management for appropriate decision. The copy of the note along with endorsement by the Vice Chancellor is part of Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The Board of the respondent university in its 80th meeting dated 6.3.1991 considered the issue and held that subject to fulfillment of necessary requirement, persons holding the post of Games Assistant should be given designation of teacher in its revised pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000. The copy of the resolution of the Board of Management has been filed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. For convenience, the same is reproduced as under :
"ujsUnnso d`f"k ,oa izkSn;kSfxd fo'ofo|ky;] Qstkckn dh izcU/k ifj"kn dh 80 oha cSBd dh dk;Zokgh A fu.kZ;
fo'ofon;ky; ds dzhM+k lgk;d ds inuke esa ifjorZu rFkk osrueku dks ;w0th0lh0 osrueku es iqujhf{[email protected]'kks/ku fd;s tkus ij fopkj ,oa fu.kZ; A foRr mi lfefr dh cSBd fnukad % 12&9&90 esa dh x;h laLrqfr rFkk 'kklu ds i= la[;k&[email protected]&8&[email protected]@90 fnukad 2&1&1991 ij i;kZIr fopkj foe'Zk gqvk A dzhM+k lgk;d ds inuke dks lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd ds inuke esa iquiZnukfer djrs gq;s ;w0th0lh dk iqujhf{kr osrueku :0 2200&4000 fnukad 1&1&1986 ls fn;s tkus ij Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h] fdUrq ;g osrueku ykxw fd;s tkus ds iwoZ iw.kZ vkSipkfjdrk;sa iwjh dh tk;a A foRr foHkkx ds izfrfuf/k us bl ij viuh vlgefr O;Dr dh vkSj voxr djk;k fd 'kklukns'k la[;k [email protected]&8&[email protected]@1989 fnukad 4&3&1989 ds vuqlkj gh dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg;s vU;Fkk 'kklu bl iz;kstu gsrq vuqnku nsus ds fy;s ck?; ugha gkszxk A
5. It appears that the State Government had considered the board's resolution and opined that the government through its earlier decision dated 2.1.1991 had declined to grant the scale and status of teacher to the Games Assistant. However, the government further observed that from the resolution of the Board, it is not clear whether the Games Assistant working in the university (the petitioner) has got equivalent qualification as of other universities to whom the benefit has been extended by Government Order dated 11.9.1984 and further approval of the academic council is necessary which does not seem to have been taken. Accordingly, the government opined that the Board's resolution may be suspended and approval may be obtained from the State Government while granting the teacher's scale and designation. Relevant portion from the letter of the State Government dated 30.5.1991 is reproduced as under :
"en la[;k & 17& fo'ofo|ky; ds dzhM+k lgk;d ds in esa ifjorZu rFkk osrueku dks ;w0th0lh0 osrueku esa iqujhf{kr @ ls'kksf/kr fd;s tkus ij fopkj ,oa fu.kZ; A ;g izdj.k 'kklukns'k la[;k [email protected]&8&[email protected] fnukad 2&1&91 }kjk iwoZ esa gh Lohd`r fd;k tk pqdk gS A ,tsUMk uksV ls ;g Li"V ugha gS fd D;k ;w0th0lh0 }kjk dzhM+k v/kh{[email protected];d dzhM+k v/kh{kd gsrq fu/kZkfjr vgZrk ds lerqY; fo'ofo|ky; esa dk;Zjr dzhM+k lgk;d vgZrk izkIr gS A blds vfrfjDr dzhM+k lgk;d dks f'k{kd ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds fy;s ifjfu;e ds v/;k; 12 dh /kkjk 28 Mh ds vuqlkj foozr ifj"kn dh laLrqfr ij izcU/k ifj"kn dh laLrqfr ij izcU/k dk vuqeksnu gksuk vko';d gS A ;g dk;Zokgh bl izdj.k esa ugha dh x;h gS A vr% ;g fu.kZ; fu;elaxr ugha gS A vr,o bl fu.kZ; ds fdz;kUo;u dks LFkfxr dj ,d foLr`r izLrko 'kklu dks Hkst dj vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk; A
6. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 30.5.1991, the matter was reconsidered by the board in its 81st meeting. The board resolved that earlier decision of the board was well considered resolution after taking note of the views expressed by the members. Hence, while affirming the earlier resolution, the board in its 81st meeting took a decision that the objection raised by the government should be removed by taking appropriate action. The copy of the resolution of the board in its 81st meeting annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition is reproduced as under :
81%1& xr 80oh cSBd dh dk;Zokgh dh iqf"V & xr 80oha cSBd dh dk;Zokgh dh iqf"V ds lEca/k esa i;kZIr ppkZ gqbZ 'kklu ds i=kad [email protected]&[email protected]@[email protected] fnukad 30 ebZ 1991 }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kska ls izca/k ifj"kn voxr gqbZ A 'kklu ds izfrfuf/k;ksa us dk;Zokgh ds en la[;k 80%12] 80%13] 80%15] rFkk 80%17 dh 'kklu ds mDr i= ds izdk'k esa iqufoZpkj fd;s tkus ij cy fn;k A v/;{k egksn; us bafxr fd;k fd iqf"Vdj.k dk mnns'; ek= bl ckr ij fopkj djuk gS fd cSBd dh dk;Zokgh fy;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ds vuqlkj gh fy[kh xbZ gS A leLr lnL;ksa us bl ckr ij lgefr O;Dr dh fd dk;Zokgh fy;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ds vuqlkj fy[kh xbZ gS vkSj rnuqlkj mldh iqf"V dh tkrh gS A ;g Hkh fu.kZ; gqvk fd 'kklu ds i= esa bafxr vkifRr;ksa ds fujkdj.k gsrq dk;Zokgh dh tk; A
7. Though it is vehemently argued by Mr. Manik Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent university that the resolution of the Board of Management in its 80th meeting has not been affirmed but it seems to be mis-conceived argument. As is evident, the board had affirmed its resolution in its 81st meeting. The related pleading as contained in para 10 of the writ petition has not been disputed by the respondent university while filing counter affidavit. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondent university admits that the board in its 80th meeting resolved to provide revised pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000. The university further opined that the recommendation of the Board of Management is not in accordance with Section 28(d) of Chapter 12 of the Act, being not approved by the academic council.
8. The submission of Mr. Sinha that the resolution of 80th meeting has not been affirmed seems to be incorrect and mis-conceived as it is evident from subsequent resolution of the board that it has affirmed the decisions taken earlier, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition (supra).
9. Subject to aforesaid backdrop, the controversy in question was considered by the respondent university and it was found that the petitioner possess required qualification under U.G.C. norms and the petitioner is discharging all duties required to be done by a teacher. The Dean of the Faculty has also affirmed that the petitioner is discharging the obligations of a teacher and right from 1982-1983 and he has been imparting education with regard to sports. The copy of the reply submitted by the Vice Chancellor through its letter dated 15.10.1991 has been filed as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. The letter dated 15.10.1991 sent by the Vice Chancellor is reproduced as under :
"izs"kd] Mk0 mRre pUnz mik?;k;] dqyifr lsok esa] Jh ch0ih0 ikUMs;
la;qDr lfpo] m0iz0'kklu d`f"k vuqHkkx & 8 y[kum A fo"k; & ujsUnz nso d`f"k ,oa izkS|ksfxd fo'ofo|ky; ds izca/k ifj"kn dh 86oh cSBd dh dk;Zokgh ds lEca/k esa A egksn;] bl fo'ofo|ky; dh mijksDr of.kZr izca/k ifj"kn dh cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj dzhM+k lgk;d Jh d`".k eqjkjh flag ds inuke dh ifjofrZr djds rFkk muds osrueku dks ;w0th0lh0 osrueku esa iqujhf{kr @la'kksf/kr fd;s tkus gsrq fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk A izca/k ifj"kn ds mijksDr fu.kZ; ij 'kklu }kjk ;g pkgk x;k gS fd pwafd ,tsUMk uksVl ugha gS fd D;k ;w0th0lh0 }kjk dzkM+k v/kh{[email protected];d dzhM+k v/kh{kd gsrq fu/kZfjr vgZrk ds lerqY; fo'pfo|ky; esa dk;Zjr dzhM=k lgk;d vgZrk izkIr gS A blds vfrfjDr dzhM+k lgk;d dks f'k{kd ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds fy, ifjfu;e ds v/;k; 12 dh /kkjk 28&Mh ds vuqlkj fo}r ifj"kn dk vuqeksnu gksuk vko';d gS A vr% bl lEca/k esa izca/k ifj"kn dh mDr dk;Zokgh ds fdz;kUo;u dks LFkfxr djus ij ,d foLr`r izLrko 'kklu dks Hkstdj vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tk; A mijksDr ds ifjikyu esa ;w0th0lh }kjk fu/kZfjr dzkM+k v/kh{[email protected] vf/kdkjh rFkk {ks+=h; dzhM++k vf/kdkjh dh vgZrk dks fo'ofo|ky; esa dk;Zjr dzhMk lgk;d Jh d`".k eqjkjh flag dh vgZrk rqyukRed v/;;u fd;k x;k] tks fd ,d rqyukRed pkVZ ds :i esa layXud gS A rqyukRed nh{kk ls ;g fofnr gqvk gS fd Jh d`".k eqjkjh flag dzhM+k lgk;d ;w0th0lh0 }kjk fu/kZkfjr vgZrk ds vuq:i vgZrk j[krs gSa A Jh d`".k eqjkjh flag viuh fu;qfDr ds le; ls ¼o"kZ 82&83½ 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk gsrq fu/kZkfjr dkslZ d`f"k rFkk x`g foKku ds Nk=] Nk=k i vr% ;g iw.kZr;k Li"V gS fd Jh flag us dsoy ;w0th0lh0 }kjk fu/kkZfjr vgZrk j[krs gSa cfYd f'k{k.k dk;Z dks tks lqpk: :i ls o"kZ 1982&83 ls yxkrkj lEikfnr djrs vk jgs gSa A fo'ofo|ky; dh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ds vuqlkj f'k{kd dh ifjHkk"kk tks fd uhps nh x;h gS ds vuqlkj Jh flag Lp;a ,d f'k{kd gSa A ifjHkk"k fuEu izdkj gS & "Teacher" means a person appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research of extension Programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the statutes to be a teacher."
vr% ;g vuqjks/k gS fd Jh d`".k eqjkjh flag dh izca/k ifj"kn ds mijksDr fu.kZ;kuqlkj ;w0th0lh osrueku 700&1500 iqujhf{kr osrueku 2200&4000 fnykus gsrq 'kklu ls Lohd`fr izkIr djus dk d"V djs A Hkonh;
mRre pUnz mik/;k;
dqyifr Thus, it appears that keeping in view the resolution of the Board of Management and in the light of the government's letter dated 30.5.1991 (supra), the matter was considered by the university and a comparative chart was prepared under the UGC norms and finding was recorded that the petitioner fulfills all necessary conditions to declare him teacher and make him entitled for the pay-scale of teacher. The comparative chart was forwarded to the State Government along with the letter of the Vice Chancellor dated 15.10.1991.
10. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor of the university again wrote a letter dated 24.12.1991 pointing out that the petitioner fulfills all necessary conditions under UGC norms and entitled for the designation of teacher along with due salary. Accordingly, in terms of the Board's resolution, necessary sanction may be accorded to provide him UGC pay-scale of teacher, i.e. Rs.2200-4000 along with designation. A copy of the letter dated 24.12.1991 sent by the Vice Chancellor has been filed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition.
11. In spite of the aforesaid letters and comparative chart with regard to qualification and duties sent by the Vice Chancellor to the government defending the Board's resolution for the reason best known to it, the State Government again vide its letter dated 10.1.1992 informed the university to send its report with regard to nature of job, qualification, norms prescribed by UGC with comparative study of the post.
12. The letter dated 10.1.1992 (Annexure-11) was sent by the State Government in spite of the fact that almost all required information was sent by the then Vice Chancellor through his letter dated 15.10.1991. Without considering the letter dated 15.10.1991 sent by the then Vice Chancellor along with comparative chart with regard to qualification and duties of the petitioner under the UGC norms followed by another letter dated 24.12.1991, the government without taking into account the factual matrix in terms of the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor had again demanded almost same information vide its letter dated 10.1.1992. The letter dated 10.1.1992 of the State Government is reproduced as under :
2& bl laca/k esa eq>ls ;g vuqjks/k djus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd tSlk fd vkils iwqoZ esa Hkh vuqjks/k fd;k tk pqdk gS d`i;k dzhM+k lgk;d ds in dh rqyuk f'k{kk foHkkx esa dk;Zjr lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd ls djus dk d"V djsa A d`i;k ;g rqyuk fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa ds ifjizs{; esa dh tk; & 1& vfuok;Z vgZrk,a 2& ojh;eku vgZrk,a 3& HkrhZ dk Jksr 4& dk;Z dh izd`fr 5& mDr inksa dks fnukad 1&7&79] 1&1&86 orZeku esa fn;k tk jgk osrueku 3& mDr ds laca/k esa eq>s iqu% Li"V djuk gS fd pawfd dzhM+k lgk;d dks lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd ds leku inuke ,oa osrueku fn;k tkuk izLrkfor gS] vr% mDr in dh rqyuk lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd ls gh dh tk; A mDr in dh rqyuk [ksydwn funs'kky; esa dk;Zjr dzhM+kf/[email protected] dzhM+kf/kdkjh ls fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS D;ksafd mUgsa jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r ih0vkj0lh osrueku fn;k tkrk gS] tcfd lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd dks ;w0th0lh osrueku fn;k tk jgk gS A vr% izLrj&2 esa vfYyf[kr fcUnqvksa ds ifjizs{; esa dzhM+k lgk;d ds in dh rqyuk lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd ds in ls djds [kklu dks rqyukRed fooj.k vfryEc miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsa A mDr lwpuk ds vHkko esa izdj.k ij vxszrj dk;Zokgh laHko ugha gks ik jgh gS A Hkonh;] ch0ih0ik.Ms;
Jh mRre pUnz mik/;k;] dqyifr] ujsUnz nso d`f"k ,oa izkS|ksfxd fo'ofo|ky;] dqekjxat] Qstkckn A
13. Again, the then Vice Chancellor Shri Uttam Chandra Upadhyay while reiterating the stand taken earlier (supra) sent his reply dated 30.1.1991 and made a request that in terms of the resolution of the Board of Management, the petitioner may be granted the teacher's scale and designation from 1.1.1986.
14. The Vice Chancellor again sent another letter dated 20.4.1992 (Annexure-16) indicating therein that the Board of Management had taken a decision to redesignate the post of Games Assistant as Assistant Physical Education Superintendent declaring it as teacher under Section 28(d) of the Act the academic council does not come in the way. Hence, he may be given the pay-scale of teacher along with designation. The operative portion of the letter dated 20.4.1992 sent by the Vice Chancellor filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition is reproduced as under :
"..............................ifjfu;e ds v/;k; 12 dh /kkjk 28 Mh ds vuqlkj gh izcU/k ifj"kn us vius vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dzhM+k lgk;d ds inuke dks lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd ds in uke esa iquZinukfer fd;k gS rFkk ;w0th0lh ds leku fn;s tkus dh Lohd`fr nh gS A ;gka ;g Hkh voxr djkuk gS fd mi;ZqDr v/;k; dh /kkjk 28 Mh ds iSjk 2 esa of.kZr 'krksZa ds vuqlkj Hkh Jh flag iw.kZdkfyd f'k{kd gS vkSj ;g ;w0th0lh0 osrueku ikus ds ik= gS D;kafd Jh flag d`f"k ,oa x`gfoKku ds [email protected]=kvksa dks 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk fo"k; lEcU/kh ikB~;dze esa f'k{k.k ,oa izf'k{k.k nsus rFkk fo'ofon~;ky; Lrjh; [ksydwn dh izfr;ksfxrkvksa ds vk;kstu ,oa lapkyu vkfn dk dk;Z Hkh foHkkx esa vdsys gh dj jgs gSa A budk Nk=ksa ls dkUVS~DV vknj fo'ofon~;ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk fu/kZkfjr ekud ls vf/kd gh gS A vr% 'kklu ls vuqjks/k gS fd Jh d`".k eqjkjh flag] dzhM+k lgk;d dks izcU/k ifj"kn dh fu.kZ;kuqlkj ;w0th0lh0 osrueku :0 700&1600 iquZjhf{kr osrueku 2200&4000 nsus gsrq 'kklu dh vuqefr iznku djus dk d"V djsa A
15. Contrary to the information sought vide letter dated 10.1.1982, the State Government again changed its stand and vide its letter dated 20.5.1992 again directed the Vice Chancellor of the university to send information with regard to sports activities during last five years. The letter dated 22.5.1992 sent by the State Government to the Vice Chancellor is filed as Annexure No.14. For convenience, the same is reproduced as under :
"mi;ZqDr fo"k;d vkids i= la[;k [email protected]&[email protected];[email protected]] fnukad 29&2&92 ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd d`i;k mDr izdj.k ij fuEufyf[kr lwpuk,a 'kklu dks vfoyEc miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsa %& 1& fiNys ikap o"kksZa esa fo'ofo|ky; esa fdrus f[kykM+h izknsf'[email protected] jk"V`h;@varjkZ"V`h; [ksyksa esa Hkkx ysus gsrq p;fur gq, A 2& fo'ofo|ky; esa xr ikap o"kksZ esa fdruh izknsf'[email protected]"Vz~ªh; [ksy izfr;ksfxrkvks dk vk;kstu fd;k x;k A 3& vU; LFkkuksa ij jk"Vªh;@vUrjfo'ofo|ky;@izknsf'kd Lrj ds [ksyksa esa D;k fo'ofo|ky; ds fdlh f[kykM+h us bl vof/k esa dksbZ lEeku vftZr fd;k A A plain reading of the letter dated 20.5.1992 at the face of it reveals that the information sought therein does not relate to the nature of job or UGC norms under which the post in question may be declared as teacher with related salary but it relates to sports activities of the university. At the face of record, there appears to be abuse of process of power by the authorities of the State Government while dealing with the controversy in question asking to send irrelevant information or material.
16. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 22.5.1992, the respondent university submitted the response dated 10.6.1992 (Annexure-13). Along with the reply dated 10.6.1992, the then Administrative Officer Shri Ram Jagat Verma had filed a chart containing the petitioner's activities as teacher right from 1982 onward indicating how he has discharged his obligation. The chart is the part of letter dated 10.6.1992 and the same is on record of the writ petition showing excellent output. It is astonishing to note that in spite of all information made available by the respondent university through its Vice Chancellor and Administrative Officer, again by letter dated 9.10.2000, the State Government had sought almost the same information. The contents of the letter dated 9.10.2000 are reproduced as under :
" [email protected]&8&2000&[email protected]@90 izs"kd] puj jke] fo'ks"k lfpo mRrj izns'k 'kklu A lsok esa] dqyifr] ujsUnznso d`f"k ,oa izkS|ksfxd fo'ofo|ky;] dqekjxat] Qstkckn A d`f"k @[email protected] % y[kum % fnukad % 09 vDVwcj] 2000 fo"k; % dzhM+k lgk;d ds inuke dks iquiZnukfer fd;s tkus ,oa ;w0th0lh0 osrueku Lohd`r djus ds laca/k esa A egksn;]
mi;ZqDr fo"k;d Jh ds0vkj0 ik.Ms;] iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh ds i= la0&[email protected]&[email protected];[email protected]] fnukad 6&7&2000 ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd lgk;d 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk v/kh{kd dh ;ksX;rk fo}ror ifj"kn }kjk D;k fu/kkZfjr dh x;h gS \ Jh d`".k eqjkjh flag] dzhM+k lgk;d dh ;ksX;rk D;k gS \ Jh flag dh 'kSf{kd vgZrk dh iqf"V esa 'kSf{kd vgZrk ds laca/k esa izek.ki= Hkh layXu fd;k tk; A blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tk;] fd fo'ofo|ky; }kjk ;w0th0lh0 osrueku Lohd`r djus gsrq fdl vk/kkj ij laLrqfr dh x;h gS \ D;k 'kSf{kd vgZrk ds vk/kj ij laLrqfr dh x;h gS \ d`i;k mDr lwpuk 'kh"kZ [email protected] Mkd ls 'kklu dks miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsa A Hkonh;] puj jke fo'ks"k lfpo A In response to the aforesaid letter, the then Administrative Officer Shri K.R. Pandey has informed the State Government that all necessary information has already been sent by the respondent university vide his earlier letters dated 20.10.1982, 30.1.1992, 5.5.1997 and so on.
17. It appears that instead of taking decision at its end, after considering the representation submitted by the petitioner's wife, the government informed the university vide its letter dated 12.1.2007 to take a decision at its end with regard to the controversy in question and inform the State Government.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the official note (Annexure-21) which was provided to him in a proceeding under Right to Information Act under which a decision was taken to provide the petitioner the pay-scale of Lecturer from 1.1.1986 along with the designation.
In pursuance to the aforesaid note sheet, then Vice Chancellor passed an order dated 8.7.2009 by which the petitioner was granted the pay-scale of teacher i.e. Rs. 2200-4000 from 1.1.1986.
19. A serious allegation has been levelled against the Administrative Officer Shri Bhagwan Deen that the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 8.7.2009 was not communicated and complied with since he declined to fulfill unwarranted demand of the Administrative Officer. Since the order was not served by the administrative officer on the petitioner he filed a writ petition No.623(S/B) of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court has decided the writ petition by judgment and order dated 9.10.2010 (Annexure-24) directing the State Government to decide the dispute keeping in view the earlier judgment of this Court in writ petition No.704 of 1999 (S/B) P.N. Rana versus State of U.P.
20. The State Government, by the impugned order dated 11.8.2010, has rejected the petitioner's claim with observation that the post of Games Assistant is a non-teaching post and it does not fulfill the required norms hence the petitioner shall not be entitled for Lecturer's scale. The government further opined that the case of Rama Kant Mishra, shall not be applicable under the present controversy.
21. While passing the impugned order, the government has not taken into account its earlier letter dated 10.1.1992 and reply submitted to it by the respondent university followed by subsequent letters and communications and the grounds (supra) on which the petitioner was granted the pay-scale and designation of the teacher. While passing the impugned order, the State Government took a mechanical decision arbitrarily, rejecting the petitioner's claim. The Government failed to appreciate the terms and conditions and duties of the Games Assistant and power of the Board of Management, coupled with its own circular dated 11.9.1984 by which with regard to identical duties and post, the pay-scale of teacher has been granted by it to different universities. It failed to appreciate the ratio of Apex Court judgment reported in 1997 Vol. 8 SCC 350 P.S. Ram Mohan Rao versus A.P. Agricultural University and others.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
22. Under the Act, the teacher has been defined under Section 2(k) which means person appointed or recognised by the university for imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes. For convenience, Section 2(k) is reproduced as under :
"Teacher" means a person appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the statutes to be a teacher; and
23. The powers and duties of the Board of Management have been defined under Sub Section (7) of Section 10 of the Act, according to which, the Board has been conferred power to regulate and determine all matters concerning university in accordance with the Act and statute. The board has been further conferred to appoint members of the Academic and administrative staff of the university in the manner prescribed. For convenience, Sub Section (7) of Section 10 is reproduced as under :
"10(7) : The powers and duties of the Board shall be as below;
(a) to approve the budget submitted by the (Kulpati);
(b) to appoint the members of the academic and administrative staff of the University in the manner prescribed;
(C) to hold and control the property and funds of the University and issue any general directive in that behalf;
(d)to accept the transfer of any movable or immovable property on behalf of the University,
(e) to administer any funds placed at the disposal of the University for specific purposes;
(f) to invest moneys belonging to the university;
(g) to direct the form and use of the Common seal of the University;
(h) to appoint such committees either standing or temporary, as it deems necessary for its proper functioning;
(i) Subject to the provisions of sub section (1) of section 11 to appoint a (Kulpati).
(j) to borrow money for capital improvements and make suitable arrangements for its repayment;
(k) to meet at such time and in such places as it deems necessary, provided however, that it shall hold one regular meeting at least every two months, and provided further that at least one-half of its regular meetings be held at the University; and
(l) to regulate and determine all matters concerning the University in accordance with this Act and the Statutes and to exercise such powers and to discharge such duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by this Act and the Statutes."
24. The power of the Academic Council has been dealt with under Section 16 of the Act. For convenience, Section 16 is reproduced as under :
""16(1) The Academic Council shall be in charge of the academic affairs of the University and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes have the control and general regulation of, and be responsible for, the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination and for the requirements for obtaining degrees, and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes, it shall have the right to advise the (Kulpati) on all academic matters.
(2)The constitution of the Academic Council and the term of office of its members shall be prescribed."
A plain reading of Section 16 reveals that the Academic Council shall be incharge of academic affairs of the university and shall be responsible for the maintenance of standard of instruction, education and examination. It shall have advisory jurisdiction to the Vice Chancellor in academic matter.
25. Under Chapter IV of the First Statute under Clause 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Academic Council has been conferred power to deal with education policy, admission matter, degrees and diploma which may be awarded by the university, conditions of the award, recommending candidates for diploma, degree and certificates to be conferred by the Vice Chancellor establishment amalgamation, division or abolition of faculties, general education policies etc.
26. The first statute of the university does not make it mandatory for the Board of Management to obtain prior recommendation of Academic Council for upgradation or redesignation of the post or grant of higher pay-scale. Being a highest administrative and supervisory body, the Administrative Committee has got ample power to take a decision on its own in case a matter is placed before it in accordance with rules. Redesignation of post or grant of higher pay-scale may be very well placed in the agenda of Board of Management for its decision. Prior concurrence or recommendation from the Academic Council is not necessary. It is evident from Chapters XII and XIII of the first Statute.
27. Under Chapter 12 (Annexure 28-d), it has been provided that the Board of Management shall from time to time determine after considering the recommendation of the Academic Council in this behalf the qualification of staff of the university and appropriate designations. For convenience, Chapter XII, Section 28(d) is reproduced as under :
"Section 28(d) :
1.The Board of Management shall, from to time, determine after considering the recommendation of the Academic Council in this behalf, the classification of the teaching staff of the University and appropriate designations, i.e. Professors, Associate Professors/ Readers, Assistant Professors/Lecturers and the like. The Board shall also have power to alter or modify such classification in any particular case.
2.The teachers of the University shall be employed on a whole-time basis on the scales of pay approved for the University provided that the proportion of time of the teachers to be devoted to teaching, research and extension or administrative duties should be specified in their contract of employment."
28. A plain reading of Chapter XII reveals that the Board of Management shall take a decision on the recommendation of the Academic Council in this behalf with regard to classification of teachers. It does not put an embargo to the powers of the Board of Management to proceed on its own to meet out the requirement of university. In the present case, keeping in view the circular dated 11.9.1984 (supra) and the Vice Chancellor's report, the matter was placed before the Board of Management in its 80th meeting for redesignation of the post of Games Assistant and grant of teacher's scale. The matter was placed before the Board of Management to extend parity keeping in view the fact that the State Government itself granted the pay-scale of teachers to the persons holding identical post in different universities. Hence, there appears to be no room of doubt that the Board of Management in view of the report of the then Vice Chancellor was empowered to take a decision for grant of teachers' pay-scale, upgradation of post as well as redesignation of post of the Games Assistant and for that, recommendation of Academic Council does not seem to be necessary. This fact is also evident from Chapter XIII of the First Statute of the university. Under Clauses 10 and 11 of Chapter XIII where the Board is the appointing authority or the appointment is to be made subject to approval of Board, the Vice Chancellor has been conferred power to make appointment for the period of six months. With regard to all non-teaching staff under Clause 11 with regard to all other staff not specifically provided in the Act, the appointment shall be made by Kulpati with the approval of the Board. For convenience, Clause 11 of Chapter XIII is reproduced as under :
"11. Appointment of all other staff not specially provided for in the Act or these statutes, shall be made by the Kulpati with the approval of the Board except the following posts which may be filled by the Kulpati without reference to the board, namely :-
(a) The non-teaching posts carrying a scale the maximum of which does not exceed Rs.1250/- including those which are filled by obtaining the services of a person on deputation for a period upto three years from a regularly constituted service of the State or Central Government or an autonomous Body constituted service of the State or Central Government or an autonomous Body constituted by the State or Central Government. The upper limit of Rs.1250/- will be subject to alteration, from time to time, by the resolutions of the Board of Management on the basis of rationalisation or enhancement occurring, on the basis of the decision of the Government.
(b) The posts for which the Kulpati is the appointing authority under the provision of the Act."
29. In view of above, there appears to be no reason to hold that the Vice Chancellor was not empowered to place the matter before the Board with regard to redesignation of post and grant of teacher's scale to the petitioner (supra) and recommendation under the circumstances from the Academic Council does not seem to be mandatory. In view of above, the finding recorded by the State Government does not seem to be correct. The Board of Management and the Vice Chancellor acted within their jurisdiction while redesignating the post in question as well as granting teacher's scale to the petitioner in the manner discussed hereinaboveto extend the parity in pay-scale and status like other universities.
30. A close scrutiny of the letter/orders, passed by the State Government from time to time with the changing of stand and seeking information from the respondent university shows that the State action seems to suffer from malice. Once the university has submitted its reply placing on record sufficient material that the petitioner fulfills requisite qualification and discharged duty in tune with the UGC norms, then there appears to be no reason on the part of the State Government or its authorities to keep the matter pending compelling the petitioner to approach this Court through writ petition No.632(S/B) of 2010. The Administrative Officer though noted that he was compelled by the Vice Chancellor or the petitioner to make necessary endorsement but that too seems to be based on unfounded facts and farce in case it is considered in the light of remark of Shri J.P. Srivastava dated 5.3.1991(supra) for inclusion in the agenda of Board of Management and decision taken and communicated to the government from time time. The denial of lecturer's scale and non-compliance of Board's resolution, that too under the teeth of the State Government's own order permitting the university to take decision at its end seems to suffer from vice of arbitrariness. Hon'ble Supreme Court by catena of judgments held that the State or its authorities must be fair and just while dealing with the service condition of its employees. Negation of fairness makes the action not only arbitrary but it may suffer from malice in law and fact.
31. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice in facts or in law. Malice in law means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object and the mala fide exercise of power does not imply any moral turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. (Vide Jaichand Lal Sethia Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 483; A.D.M. Jabalpur Vs. Shiv Kant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207; State of A.P. Vs. Goverdhanlal Pitti, AIR 2003 SC 1941).
32. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the latter action of the university and decision of the State Government seems to suffer from malice in law. The administrative officer of the university has not acted in a fair and just manner keeping in view the endorsement and the recommendation made by his predecessor and the Vice Chancellor. At the end the government also not acted in just and fair manner. The informations were required with the change of stand (supra) shows that the government has not acted fairly while adjudicating the controversy and passing the impugned order.
33. Though the Government Order dated 11.9.1987 does not seem to be applicable to the respondent university but keeping in view the similarity of nature of job and employment and fulfilment of required conditions under UGC norms, once the Board of Management of the university took a decision to upgrade the post and revise the nomenclature and pay-scale, then the government should have considered the petitioner's representation in the same prospective instead of making out a third case. It has not been disputed that right, duties and liabilities of the Games Assistant is similar to the post of Instructor, Superintendent, Director, Assistant Games Superintendent, Physical Training Instructor etc working in other universities of the State to whom Lecturer's scale and status has been granted by the Government circular dated 11.9.1984.
34. It was in E.P. Royappa versus State of Tamil Nadu and another AIR 1974 SC 555, a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the status and responsibility of a post for the purpose of determining equivalence does not depend on who is going to occupy it. The equivalence in status and responsibility should be considered on an objective assessment of the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post. To quote :
"The status and responsibility of a non-cadre post for the purpose of determining equivalence cannot depend on who is going to occupy it. It is really the other way round. The equivalence in status and responsibility determined on an objective assessment of the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post should decide which officer should occupy it."
Their Lordships further considered the incident of mal administration and arbitrary exercise of power in the following words :
"90.....................The incidents referred to by the petitioner, if true, constituted gross acts of mal-administration and the charge leveled against the second respondent was that because the petitioner in the course of his duties obstructed and thwarted the second respondent in these acts of mal-administration, that the second respondent was annoyed with him and it was with a view to putting him out of the way and at the same time deflating him that the second respondent transferred him from the post of Chief Secretary."
In E.P. Royappa's case (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court further proceeded to observe as under :
"Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species, Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine or equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and Constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on equivalent relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice : in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16."
"86. It is also necessary to point out that the ambit and reach of Articles 14 and 16 are not limited to cases where the public servant affected has a right to a post. Even if a public servant is in an officiating position, he can complain of violation of Articles 14 and 16 if he has been arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exercise of power by the State machine. It is, therefore, no answer to the charge of infringement of Articles 14and 16 to say that the petitioner had no right to the post of Chief Secretary but was merely officiating in that post. That might have some relevance to Article 311 but not to Articles 14 and 16."
35. E.P. Royappa's case (supra) has been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in a catena of judgments with same vigour.
36 The manner in which the government has dealt with the petitioner's case with repeated change of stand inviting information but passing the impugned order on different grounds seems to be also a case of mal administration.
37. In AIR 1970 SC 21 Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd. versus State of U.P and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the aim of Article 14 is to protect the persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment.
38. In (1982) 1 SCC 618 Randhir Singh versus Union of India and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work for both men and women under Art. 39(d) means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. It is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance.
39. In (1987)4 SCC 634 Bhagwan Dass and others versus State of Haryana and others, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme court held that if duties and functions of appointees are same, then there cannot be discrimination in pay between them merely on ground of difference in the mode of their selection or that the appointment or scheme under which appointments made was temporary.
40. In AIR 1988 SC 1504 Jaipal and others versus State of Haryana and others, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid proposition and held that where nature of duties and functions are same, then there cannot be discrimination in the matter of payment of salary.
41. In AIR 1993 SC 286 State of Madhya Pradesh and another versus Pramod Bhartiya and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work as is self evident, is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Art. 14, from which it flows. Because of Clause (d) of Art. 39, there cannot be discrimination in the payment of salary for equal work. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that what is more important and crucial is whether the person claiming parity in employment/pay scale discharge similar duties, functions and responsibilities (para 12).
42. In (2001)1 SCC 353 Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank versus D.B. Sharma and others, the decision of equation Committee was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court based on abstractive consideration of dispute with regard to equivalence pay. In the present case, the respondent university has considered the equivalence of duties in terms of U.G.C. norms and changed the designation and granted teacher's pay-scale under the statute which should not have been reversed without recording a finding after well appreciation of evidence on record.
43. Keeping in view the aforesaid broader principle of law, it appears that the Board of Management has taken a decision granting teacher's nomenclature and salary within the four-corner of law and constitutional mandate.
44. In the case of Rama Kant Mishra, the petitioner joined as Physical Training Instructor and his post was redesignated as Superintendent, Physical Education. When the revised pay-scale of the Lecturer was not granted, the petitioner Rama Kant Mishra filed writ petition No.167(S/B) of 1995.
45. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 20.2.1998 allowed the writ petition and granted the Lecturer's scale and benefits in pursuance to earlier notification dated 28.12.1974. Relevant portion from the judgment of Rama Kant Mishra is reproduced as under :
"The burden of his averments was that for all intents and purposes the Superintendent Physical Education is a "lecturer" within the purview of the Education-scheme and as such entitled to be treated at par with regard to the grant of pay scales and other attendant benefits. His repeated entreaties to the respondents failed to evoke any constructive response even after his retirement but during the meanwhile some of his similarly placed colleagues approached this court in writ petition no.1242 (S/B) of 1994(N.P. Singh versus State of U.P and others). The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 31.1.97 with the finding that the Superintendents physical Education were to be treated at par with the lecturers for all intents and purposes and the benefits and all the indulgence granted to the latter vide the revised pay scale notification dated 22.12.74 were to be accorded to them also. It was further ordered that they were entitled for selection grade too w.e.f the date they completed 10 years of service from the date of their initial appointment as Superintendent Physical Education."
The Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in the case of Rama Kant Mishra(supra) admittedly was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It may be noted that in the case of Rama Kant Mishra, the court relied upon a notification dated 28.12.1974 which is earlier to notification dated 11.9.1982.
46. Mr. V.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra), that too relates to grant of teacher's scale and status to a person possessing the post of Physical Director in the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University. Definition of teacher in the statute in question (supra) seems to be pari materia to the definition of teacher considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra). In P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra), their Lordships noted that, according to the University itself, the duty of Physical Director was to arrange games and sports daily for the students to look after procurement of sports' material and maintenance of sport grounds, to arrange inter class and inter collegiate tournaments to accompany teams for inter university tournament and to guide students about rules of various games and sports.
The petitioner's duty while holding the post of Games Assistant is identical to the duty of Physical Director considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra). The Vice Chancellor has also forwarded to the State Government reiterating that the petitioner squarely falls within the definition of teacher provided under Section 2(k) of the Act. Hence, the Board has rightly upgraded his post redesignated the same to award the salary of teacher.
47. After considering the relevant provisions and duties of the petitioner in P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the definition of teacher provided in respective statute and made observation as under :
"5. For the purpose of deciding the above issue arising between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Sub-clause (n) of Section 2 defines 'teacher' as follows:
"2. (n) teacher" includes a professor, reader, lecturer or other person appointing or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes, and any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher.
The definition does not say what the word 'teacher" means but includes certain categories within the meaning of the said word."
9. From the aforesaid affidavit it is clear that a Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanies the students team when they go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of the various games and sports. It is well known that different games and sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are guided about the said rules and practices they will not be able to play the games and participate in the sports in a proper manner. Further, in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games and sports. There are large number of indoor and outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and the techniques of these games apart from the rules applicable to these games.
10.Having regard to the above-said material before us. we are clearly of the view that the appellant comes within the definition of a teacher in Sub-clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act."
48. After considering the definition of teacher and role of Physical Director, their Lordships further observed as under :
"19. We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical education is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier, among various duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise, are included the duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules and practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main part of the definition as a 'teacher'. We, therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit of the University."
The controversy in question seems to be squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra) where identical statutory provisions have been dealt with.
49. In clause (n) of Section 2 of Andhra Pradesh Act, 1963 and the section 2(k) of the Act in question, the words, "for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes" are pari materia. The definition of teacher in both the Acts is identical. Hence, the interpretation of teacher by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra) with regard to Sports Director is squarely applicable to the present case.
50. In a case reported in (2004)1 SCC 755 Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Assn. Versus Administrative Officer and others, their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the doctrine of pari materia and held that it may be applied with reference to other statutes forming part of same system as aid to the construction of provisions in a statute. To quote relevant portion :
"On the doctrine of 'pari materia', reference to other statutes dealing with the same subject or forming part of the same system is a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a statute. See the following observations contained in Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh [8th Ed.] - Synopsis 4 at pg. 235 to 239:-
'Statutes in Pari Materia :- It has already been seen that a statute must be read as a whole as words are to be understood in their context. Extension of this rule of context permits reference to other statutes in pari materia, i.e. statutes dealing with the same subject matter or forming part of the same system. Viscount Simonds in a passage already noticed conceived it to be a right and duty to construe every word of a statute in its context and he used the word context in its widest sense including 'other statutes in pari materia'. As stated by Lord Mansfield 'where there are different statutes in pari materia though made at different times, or even expired, and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed together, as one system and as explanatory of each other. .........................
The application of this rule of construction has the merit of avoiding any apparent contradiction between a series of statues dealing with the same subject, it allows the use of an earlier statute to throw light on the meaning of a phrase used in a later statute in the same context, it permits the raising of a presumption, in the absence of any context indicating a contrary intention, that the same meaning attaches to the same words in a later statute as in an earlier statute if the words are used in similar connection in the two statutes, and it enables the use of a later statute as parliamentary exposition of the meaning of ambiguous expressions in an earlier statute."
51. In the present case, the language of Section 2(k) is similar to the language used in Andhra Act with regard to its agricultural university. Hence, the doctrine of pari materia may be applied while extending the benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case (supra).
52. The Board of Director had rightly resolved and declared the petitioner as teacher in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act and acted within jurisdiction while changing the nomenclature as Assistant Physical Education Superintendent with teacher's pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000.
54. The State Government has been failed to appreciate the Board's resolution in its real perspective and within the four corners of the statutory provisions, hence it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as well as non-application of mind and vitiates. The consequential order passed thereon by the Vice Chancellor also shall not be sustainable.
55. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 11.8.2010 contained in Annexure No.25, followed by orders dated 17.5.2010 and 26.6.2010 contained in Annexures 29-A and 29-B of the writ petition with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case afresh in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgment and pass a fresh order expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order and communicate the decision.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
( Justice S.C. Chaurasia) (Justice Devi Prasad Singh) July 20, 2012 kkb/