THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25671 of 2000 ORDER: Sanskrit is a language “more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin and more exquisitely refined than either” said Sir William Jones as early as in the year 1786. Sanskrit, one of the most ancient and greatest languages of human civilization, has greatly influenced most other Indian languages. Sanskrit, once venerated as the repository of spiritual knowledge, was a medium which Indian civilization, ever since the Vedic period, found its expression in. The Vedas, the Epics, the Dharma Sastras and the Mitaksara, are but some of the Sanskrit works unmatched both in its form and content. There is a very large Sanskrit element in Telugu and other South Indian languages. Even on the dawn of Indian independence, our founding fathers bore in mind the importance of Sanskrit in giving the new born nation its distinct identity. The word ‘Bharat’ in Article-1 of our Constitution is from Sanskrit. ‘Satyameva Jayate’ our national motto is a Sanskrit quote and ‘Jana Gana Mana’, our National Anthem, is largely Sanskrit. The pride of place given to Sanskrit can be gathered from what Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said. To quote:- “If I was asked what is the greatest treasure which India possesses and what is her finest heritage, I would answer unhesitatingly it is the Sanskrit language and literature, and all it contains. This is a magnificent inheritance, and so long as this endures and influences the life of our people, so long the basic genius of India will continue”. In the present times when economic considerations far outweigh all other aspects of life, Sanskrit, as a language, is slowly but surely paling into insignificance. The case on hand illustrates this unfortunate situation. A Sanskrit Scholar, with a doctorate in the subject, beseeches this Court to direct the competent government authorities, and the management of the college where he is working as a lecturer in Sanskrit, to shed their apathy and give him his due. All that he asks is that he be paid the regular scales of pay which, though accorded to lecturers in other subjects, has been unjustly denied to him. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a post graduate in Sanskrit, acquired his Doctorate (Ph.D) in Sanskrit in the year 1986 and was fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit. Considering the petitioner’s high academic credentials and research work, the 3rd respondent made enquiries in the Andhra University and thereafter appointed him as a Lecturer in its college on 29-08-1987. The 3rd respondent, a composite college, was hitherto running in two shifts i.e., the morning shift from 7.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and the afternoon shift from 12.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. According to the petitioner, the student strength in Intermediate, (both 1st and 2nd year), was more than 100 in each year and, coupled with the 100 students in undergraduate courses, the total number of students in the third respondent college, who were taught Sanskrit, was around 300. Though more than one Lecturer was required, no second Lecturer was appointed ever since Sanskrit was introduced as a subject and he had to bear the entire work load. According to the petitioner he was made to work the whole day, was assigned classes in both the shifts from 7.30 a.m. till 5.30 p.m., and was taking classes for 36 hours each week during the years between 1987 and 1992. The working hours of the college was rescheduled in the year 1992 from 10.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and, thereafter, the petitioner was assigned 28 hours of class work each week. Petitioner would contend that he was discharging a heavier workload than that of a full-time/regular lecturer and that the work allotted to him, in terms of working hours each week, was much more than what was assigned to lecturers in other disciplines. Though there were six aided vacancies available in the college the respondents did not take steps to regularize his services and, while he was initially paid Rs.1,440/- per month, it was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2,950/-. Petitioner would submit that he has three research papers to his credit, he has attended five conferences, out of which one was a World Conference, that in the month of January, 1999 the 3rd respondent had recommended regularization of his services to respondents 1 and 2 and that, while orders of regularization were issued in May, 1999, posting him to M.R. College, Vizianagaram, along with eight other Lecturers whose services were also regularized, the said absorption proceedings were withdrawn on the ground that the third respondent college had not obtained prior approval for his initial appointment. According to the petitioner while the respondents had regularized the services of eight lecturers, who were all junior to him, his case alone had been rejected on flimsy grounds. Petitioner would reiterate that he has been treated as a regular Lecturer ever since 1987, that he was treated as the head of the department of Sanskrit, that he had been chosen for setting the Sanskrit question paper for C.R. Reddy College, Eluru and M.R. College, Vizianagaram, that he was selected as a member of the Board of Studies for M.R. College, Vizianagaram, that the Board of Intermediate Education has been selecting him periodically for spot valuation and many a time for revaluation of papers for degree colleges affiliated to the Andhra University, that he was being selected as an internal examiner in the 3rd respondent college and that he has been working, ever since the date of his initial appointment as a lecturer in 1987, for more than 28 hours each week, and that, though the maximum workload assigned to Lecturers of other colleges was only 18 hours per week, he had been denied regularization of his services and payment of regular salary and allowances as are applicable to lecturers in aided posts. In his additional affidavit, the petitioner would refer to G.O.Ms. No. 520, dated 15-12-1988, wherein the scales of pay of lecturers was revised from the then existing scales of pay of Rs. 700-1600 to that of Rs.2200-4000. He would submit that, while the pre-1993 state scales of pay of a lecturer was Rs.3640-7580, the revised 1993 state scales of pay of a lecturer was Rs.6950-14425 and that, under the 1996 revised scales of pay, the pay scales of a lecturer was revised to Rs.8000-13500. According to the petitioner, since the 3rd respondent college was a composite degree college, U.G.C. scales of pay were applicable to its teaching staff. Petitioner would contend that, while the maximum work load required to be allotted to a lecturer, under the U.G.C. guidelines, was only 18 hours per week, the petitioner had put in more than 28 hours per week. He would further submit that he has been suffering from Cancer, that he has been taking treatment for the last six months and had undergone an operation, that he has been advised to take radiation treatment (32 radiations) and Chemotherapy (five in all), that each injection costs about Rs.14,000/-, and that he was advised to take booster radiations, which are even costlier. In the counter affidavit filed, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the 3rd respondent college has been admitted to grant-in-aid, that the combination of Sanskrit as a 2nd language was allowed as some of the students had opted for the said subject, that the management had appointed the petitioner as a part-time lecturer without informing or obtaining prior permission of the government and, though the petitioner was appointed during 1987 as a part-time lecturer, and may have fulfilled all the conditions stipulated by the government for his regularization, it had come to their notice that the petitioner was appointed without prior permission only when the management was asked to submit proposals in respect of all part-time lecturers who had fulfilled the conditions prescribed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15-10- 1997. It is stated that, amongst the conditions stipulated in the said G.O., is that there should be sanctioned posts, that the subject should be admitted to grant-in-aid and since the post of Sanskrit as a subject, and as one of the second languages, was not admitted to aid, the petitioner was not entitled to claim regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 328, dated 15-10-1997. While admitting that the services of eight part-time lecturers, working in the 3rd respondent college, had been regularized in terms of the said G.O., it is stated that they were regularized as the faculty in which they were working was admitted to grant-in-aid. According to the respondents, since the petitioner was working against a non-existing post, which was neither prescribed by the 1st respondent nor admitted to grant-in- aid, he was not entitled to claim regularization of his services. The 3rd respondent, in its counter affidavit, would submit that the post of a lecturer in sanskrit was not sanctioned by the government, that the petitioner herein was working only as a part- time lecturer since 1987-88 and, since the post of sanskrit lecturer was not sanctioned to the 3rd respondent college, the petitioner could not have any claim for regularization and absorption into an aided vacancy in the 3rd respondent college. The petitioner’s qualifications, and his appointment as a part-time lecturer on 29- 08-1987, are admitted. According to the 3rd respondent there was not even a single aided vacant post of lecturer in sanskrit in the 3rd respondent college, that sanskrit as a subject was started as a second language in intermediate as well as in the degree college and that students were permitted to study and write Sanskrit, as a second language, on their own accord. According to the 3rd respondent it was obtaining permission to teach Sanskrit as a second language every year since 1989, that as per G.O.Ms. No. 328 dated 15.10.1997, part-time lecturer were required to be absorbed into aided vacancies and, though proposals were submitted to the government in the year 1999 to regularize the services of the petitioner, no regularization orders were received. The 3rd respondent would contend that the petitioner was never a regular lecturer, that he was appointed only as a part-time lecturer and that part-time lecturers do carry out certain works of a lecturer but that could not be the basis for the petitioner to claim that he should be treated as a regular lecturer. The 3rd respondent would submit that it is not concerned with regularization of the petitioner’s services. With regards payment of regular salary, the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner would become eligible to draw regular salary only after regularization of his services and absorption into an aided vacancy and that the post held by him would not entitle him for grant of regular scales of pay until, and unless, his services were regularized. On the additional affidavit being filed by the petitioner, on 17-02-2006, Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent, sought time on 20-02-2006 to enable the 3rd respondent to file its counter-affidavit to the additional affidavit. The writ petition was directed to be posted after two weeks. Again on 20-03-2006, the matter was adjourned by a week. After summer vacations, again on 06-06-2006, at the request of the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the matter was posted after two weeks. The matter was again adjourned from 22-08-2006 to 01-09-2006, despite which no counter affidavit was filed by any of the respondents to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It must, therefore, be presumed that the contents of the additional affidavit are not in dispute. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that Rule 7(4) of the Rules, notified in G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 05-02-1987, required the 3rd respondent to pay salaries to its staff on par with government pay scales. Learned counsel would submit that, while the maximum number of working hours for a part-time lecturer was between 9 to 12 hours each week, the petitioner was initially made to work 36 hours each week as the 3rd respondent college, during the period 1987 to 1992, was working in two shifts, and for 28 hours per week when the single shift system from 10.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m, was introduced in the 3rd respondent college in the year 1992. Learned counsel would submit that these specific averments, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, have not been denied and that, despite the heavy work load of 28 hours per week, the petitioner was running the entire department of Sanskrit all by himself and that no second lecturer was appointed. According to the learned counsel, whatever may be the nomenclature, the fact remained that the petitioner was rendering services as a regular lecturer putting in more than 28 hours work per week and, since the petitioner possessed the qualifications prescribed for a regular lecturer, he was entitled for payment of salary and allowances on par with regular lecturers. Learned counsel would refer to G.O.Ms. No. 127 dated 30-08-2000, wherein the 1996 revised pay scales were extended to lecturers who were earlier drawing the state scales of pay. Annexure to the said G.O., details the pay which a lecturer appointed, on or after 01-07-1998, is entitled to. Learned counsel would refer to G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 08-06-1994, whereunder part-time lecturers working in government degree colleges were entitled for payment of salary and allowances, calculated on the basis of the minimum scale of pay, and for regularization of their services. Learned counsel would submit that the minimum scale of pay was extended, with effect from the beginning of the academic year 1992-93, to such of those part-time lecturers who had been working in regular vacancies or where the work justified appointment of a regular lecturer for more than three years by 30- 04-1991 or were teaching over 16 periods per week and that the government had decided that, in case of such lecturers, salary calculated at the minimum scale of pay i.e., the revised 1993 state scales of pay of Rs.3640-7580 shall be paid instead of on an hourly basis from the commencement of the academic year 1992- 93. Learned counsel would submit that while the petitioner, because of his continued ill-health, is not pressing for the relief of regularization of his services, in view of Rule 7 (4), of the Rules notified in G.O.Ms. No. 29, dated 05-02-1987, the petitioner was entitled for payment of regular scales of pay on par with government pay scales. Learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Krishnamacheryulu Vs. Venkateswara Hindu College of Engingeering[1] and the judgments of this court in N.Suvarna Raju Vs State of A.P. [2] and M.D. Soujanya Vs. S.V.V.P.V.M.C. Mahila Vidya Peeth[3]. Learned Government Pleader for School Education would submit that it is only when a post is admitted to grant-in-aid would the government be liable for payment of salaries for such aided posts and, since the post of lecturer in sanskrit in the 3rd respondent college was not admitted to grant-in-aid, the question of regularizing the services of the petitioner as a lecturer in an aided post or the government being required to pay him salary does not arise. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, would submit that Rule 7 of the Rules notified in G.O.Ms. No. 29, dated 05-02-1987, prescribes the staff pattern and, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, the staff pattern for various classes/categories of educational institutions shall be prescribed by the Board of Intermediate Education or the Director of Higher Education as the case may be. Learned counsel would submit that, under Rule 7(2) (b), appointment of teaching staff in private educational institutions shall be, by way of recruitment, through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or as per the procedure prescribed by the government from time to time, that under Rule 7(3) the competent authority, for approval of appointments of teaching-staff or intermediate education, shall be the Board of Intermediate Education and, for other educational institutions, the university concerned. He would submit that, under Rule 7(3) of the Rules, the educational agency shall get the list of selected candidates approved by the competent authority within one month from the date of making the appointments, submitting its application in FORM-IV. According to the Learned counsel, since sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 requires the educational agency or any private institution to pay salaries to its staff as per the government scales of pay following such procedure as may be prescribed by the government, from time to time in this regard, and as the petitioner was appointed as a part-time lecturer, he was only entitled for payment as a part-time lecturer and not for the benefit of regular pay scales which a regular lecturer was entitled to. Learned counsel would refer to G.O.Ms. No. 208, dated 29-06-1999, more particularly to clause-11 in the Appendix thereto which deals with part-time lecturers, and would submit that, while the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment as part-time lecturers is the same as that of regular lecturers and they are also to be selected by regularly constituted selection committees it is only in exceptional circumstances, when it is appropriate to the requirements of the institution, in terms of the subjects to be taught or the workload, that they can be appointed on contract for short periods or as permanent half-time/proportionate time employees against half/proportionate salary of the scale, and that such permanent part-time teachers are also entitled to the scheme of career advancement from lecturers to senior scale lecturers, selection grade lecturers/readers, and professors, but, however, they would be entitled to half/proportionate amount of the basic of the pay-scale and for proportionate increments, dearness allowance and other permissible benefits. Learned counsel would submit that, in view of the executive instructions issued in G.O.Ms. No. 208, dated 29-06-1999, the petitioner was not entitled for regular scales of pay and was merely entitled for proportionate pay. Learned counsel would submit that, while the petitioner claims regular scales of pay from the date of his initial appointment, the fact remains that he has approached this court only in the year 2000 and, in view of the inordinate delay in invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court, the petitioner must be denied the relief sought for in the writ petition. Learned counsel would place reliance on Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty[4], Mahendra L. Jain Vs. Indore Development Authority[5], Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi[6]. Before examining the rival contentions, it is necessary to take note of the relevant statutory provisions. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 20 and 21 read with Section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act 1982, the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 were made and notified in G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 5.2.1987. Under Rule 1(2), these rules apply to all educational institutions (both government and private), imparting degree courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Rule 2(d) defines competent authority to be the authority who is competent to grant permission/recognition/ affliation, as the case may be, to the educational institutions. Rule 3 provides that the competent authority for granting or withdrawing permission shall be the Commissioner. Rule 4 relates to the conditions of grant of permission and Rule 7, the staff pattern. Rule 7(2)(b) provides that appointment of teaching staff in private educational institutions shall be by way of recruitment through the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission or as per the procedure prescribed by the government from time to time. Rule 7(4) provides for payment of salaries and thereunder the educational agency of any private institution shall pay salaries to its staff as per the government scales of pay and by following such procedure as may be prescribed by the government, from time to time, in this regard. For convenience sake, Rule 7 is extracted below in its entirety:- 7(1) Staff Pattern:- The staff pattern for various classes/categories of educational institutions shall be prescribed by the Board of Intermediate Education/University/Director of Higher Education, as the case may be. (2) Appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff:- (a) Appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in the Government educational institutions shall be by way of recruitment through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or as per the procedure prescribed by the Government from time to time. (b) Appointment of teaching staff in private educational institutions shall be by way of recruitment through the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission or as per the procedure prescribed by the Government from time to time. (c) Appointment of non-teaching staff in private educational institutions shall be by the Selection Committee from among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange or drawn through newspaper advertisements in case the Employment Exchange could not sponsor suitable candidates. The Selection Committee shall comprise of the following members and the quorum for the Selection Committee shall not be complete unless atleast four of the five members are present. The candidates approved by majority members present shall be deemed to have been selected by the Committee- (i) a nominee of the educational agency; (ii) the Principal of the Institution; (iii) one representative of the Board of Intermediate Education/University concerned as the case may be; (iv) two nominees of the Director of Higher Education. (3) Competent authority for approval of appointments:- The competent authority for approval of appointments of teaching-staff of Intermediate education shall be the Board of Intermediate Education and that for other educational institutions shall be the university concerned. The competent authority for approval of appointments of non-teaching staff in all the institutions shall be the Director. The educational agency shall get the list of selected candidates approved by the competent authority within one month from the date of making the appointments, by applying through FORM-IV. Appointments made as per selection by Service Commission, however do not require further approval. (4) Payment of salaries to staff:- The educational agency of any private institution shall pay salaries to its staff as per the Government scales of pay and by following such procedure as may be prescribed by Government from time to time, in this regard. Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act relates to permission for establishment of educational institutions and Section 21 relates to grant or withdrawal of recognition of institutions imparting education. Under Section 21(1), the competent authority may grant recognition to an educational institution subject to such conditions as it may prescribe in regard to accommodation, equipment, appointment of teaching staff, etc. Under Sub-section 2(f) where the manager of a private educational institution contravenes any of the provisions of the Act, the rules and orders made thereunder, the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, withdraw the recognition granted earlier to such an institution or take such other action as is deemed necessary after giving the manager an opportunity of making a representation against such withdrawal. Contravention of the rules, made under the A.P. Education Act, would entail withdrawal of the recognition granted to a private educational institution. Section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act 1982 is the rule making power. Since the rules, notified in G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 05.02.1987, were made in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 20 and 21 read with Section 99 of the A.P. Education Act, contravention of these statutory rules would, under Section 21(2) (f) of the A.P. Education Act, entail withdrawal of the recognition granted to a private educational institution. As noted above, Rule 7(4) relates to payment of salaries to the staff of private institutions and thereunder the educational agency of the private institution shall pay salaries to its staff as per the government scales of pay and by following such procedure as may be prescribed by the government from time to time. While payment of salaries to its staff, as per government scales of pay, is mandatory, the procedure or