IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 6449 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.9.2010 Kanwar Jeet Singh … Petitioner. Versus H.P.Krishi Vishva Vidalaya …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The only question which arises for decision in this case is whether the petitioner is a teacher and is entitled to the UGC grade applicable to teachers. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner herein was appointed as Senior Museum Specialist under a scheme made for strengthening of facilities of establishment of educational museum at the H.P. Krishi Vishvavidalaya, Palampur now known as the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalaya. He was granted scale of Rs.300-600, which was a scale meant for the teaching post under the University Grants 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Commission (UGC). The petitioner made a representation that in fact this scale had been revised to Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and therefore the petitioner, right from his date of appointment, was entitled to this scale. The respondent-University constituted a Committee consisting of the Joint Secretary (Finance), Registrar and Comptroller of the University. This Committee considered the case of the petitioner and came to the following conclusion:- “The Committee after taking into consideration the fact that Shri Kanwarjeet Singh, Sr. Museum Specialist (Ex.) was selected against a teaching post in the scale of Rs.300-600 (UGC) and as such he is entitled for the scale of Rs.700- 1600 (UGC) from the date of the joining i.e. 17.2.1975 (scale revised w.e.f.11.1973) instead of 9.2.1979.” 3. This communication clearly shows that this Committee headed by three senior officials of the respondent-University came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been selected against a teaching post and entitled to the scale of a teaching post. 4. The matter did not end here. Thereafter the scales of teaching posts were revised in the year 1986 and 1992. The petitioner was not given the benefit of the revision of the said scales i.e. scale of Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and selection grade of Rs.3700-5700 3 w.e.f. 1.1.1992. He again made a representation and prayed that he falls within the teaching cadre and should be granted such scales. On this representation on 29th October, 1998 the Vice Chancellor appointed Dr. P.S.Ahuja, Director, Institute of Himalayan Bio-resource Technology, Palampur, as an outside expert to examine the case of the petitioner and determine his status as to whether he is a teacher or not. Dr. Ahuja after examining the entire case of the petitioner came to the following conclusion:- “All above facts illustrated in the Annexures from the University clearly reflect that Shri Kanwarjit Singh has been appointed against a teaching post, has been given teacher’s scale, has been working to the aims and objectives of the Extension Education Department. Thus, he should be considered at par with other colleagues of the Extension Education Department in terms of career prospects. To the best of my knowledge, the others in similar scale in the extension education department are being considered as is the case for teaching posts of the University. Hence, Shri Kanwarjit Singh deserves to be considered as is the case for teaching post.” 5. It was expected that the respondent-University should have accepted this recommendation of these expert body with grace. However, it did not do so and the respondent-University in its reply has stated that 4 the Academic Council in its 74th meeting held on 6.8.1999 did not accept the report of Shri Ahuja and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of the scale of teachers. 6. To say the least, the University has acted in a totally arbitrary and irrational manner. On two occasions, Committees of experts were constituted to determine the status of the petitioner. On the first occasion, as noted above, the Committee constituted of the Joint Secretary (Finance), the Registrar and the Comptroller of the University and on the second occasion an outside expert being a very senior scientist and Director of the Institute of Himalayan Bio-resource Technology (IHBT) was appointed. They are the experts in their fields. Once these experts had stated that the petitioner would fall in the category of the teacher then if the Academic Council had to differ with the opinion of the experts it was expected that the Academic Council in its decision would have given reasons to differ with the opinion of the experts. No reasons have been given by the Academic Council and all that was stated was that the Academic Council does not accept the report of Dr. Ahuja. Once expert bodies are appointed, the recommendation made by such 5 expert bodies should not be lightly brushed aside and rejected without giving any reasons what-so-ever. 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petition has to be allowed. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner shall be treated to be a member of the teaching staff and shall be granted scale of Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. As far as the plea for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1992 is concerned he shall be taken to be a member of the teaching staff and his case for grant of selection grade shall be considered with effect from the date it was due and payable to him and if it is found that he is entitled to such grade the same shall be granted to him. The respondent-University is directed to work out the arrears payable to the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner on or before 30th April, 2011 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date the amount fell due to the petitioner till payment. In case, the amount is not paid on or before 30th April, 2011 the University shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date when the amount fell due. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 22nd September, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.