4(A!11 ^lft'ti* ^TWih n*ii <MI<;O a>*iw ^9 'S^ '<liqi<nq, SITflf-l'Ko, f^dl'yy HWCITtBlltlt ;"^200 Sf^V 'T^^T (Ylf^'Kt't) TOIIW ^lfttf 311^1 livision Bench: Hon'bie SHri Dhjrendra Mishra & Mon'bie Sh P. N(fr. 472 OF 2002 Stat^ of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Higller Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Man(ralaya, DKS Buiidinc (Cht(attisgarh) The ICommissioner, Higher Education, Govt. of Chh^ttisgarh, Raipur (Chhatti'sgarh) 'LI Raicfur ihri Kishore Bhaduri, learfted petitioners. cdunse Shn Jitendra Paii, iearned 1. By th.is petition under Articl petitioners have impugned pa.ssed in Original Appllcati[ Administrative Tribunal, Raii|>ur the application of the resp^i No.1 be granted setectio^i increments, and further dif ef>P4^CT<^'1 *ii*iCTi* ^FT^^ <F;qtiri< ^ -ititafl 3n^?T i R.N. Chandrakar, JJ |Dwivedi, aged abouf56 years, ILate B.P. Dwivedi, Assistant Professor, >nt History, Culture and Archaeology Government of Chhattisgarh ^ge, Raipur, resident of Kota Raipur, Tehsii pistrict Raipur (Chhattisgarh) of Administrative Tribunai, Raipur Bench, (Chhattisgarh) 5.D.I S/o Ancil Dep^rtment, Coll. Stat itional Advocate General for the for the respondent No.1. 226/227 of the Constitution of india, the he order dated 24.6.2000 (Annexure P/1) >n No. 792/98,whereby Madhya Pradesh Bench (in short "Tribunal") has allov/ed ndent No.1 and ordered that respondent scale from 12.12.1990 with regular ected that the amount be paid to the '95—11/2008—1,00,000. •n ^.l:Effl Ui '^®^ 9>6 X;-HC—7S s'-d yTil<-i-"." R?IK ;i :'-f<:^ ^^t^. TRnW'Bft" S'-CTi' L^T^lw4t'l 'EPW^f "^ fS1c^t t.!:3<-(^.!< ^•sifTOaff^ respondent No.1 within a order. (Parties hereinafter ph of three months from receipt of the be referred to as per their description 2. Briefly stated, case of the ^ initiaily appointed in a p| ipplicant before the Tribunal was that he was irivate college on 12.12.1974, which was subsequentiy taken over b^ the government on 17.7.1981 and services of the applicant were absofbed w.e.f. 17.7.1981. The governrnent took a poiicy decision to plac^ all the Assistant Professors, who have completed 8 years ofservibe from the date of their appointment, in the senior scale, and those whb have completed 16 years of service, in the selection scale of Rs.^700-5700. The applicant submitted his i representation for grant of ^election scale w.e.f. 12.12.1990, thedate on which he completed 16 'years of service as Assistant Professor. However, his representatjon was not considered. Further case of the ipplicant was that six Assistant Professors were granted selection scale and amongst these professors, Smt. Sudarshan Kapoor was also ^ranted selection scate w.e.f. 21.11.1988, though she was junior to the applicant. He was not placed in seiection !ist as his Annual Confidentiai Report (ACR) for the year 1983 and 1985 was not available in the Directorate. Subsequentiy, the State Govt. took a policy decision in the year 1995 making it compulsory that the Assistant Professors/Sports Officers/Librarian, who, after being placed in senlor pay scale, have undergone hA'o refresher courses of four weeks each, shail be entitled for seiection pay scale. However, the Assistant Professors, who had not ^^- dlAKITOft-ti* ^TWTF fl<n <*n^<n i»*nq» T5{•-t|i<ii<i'H, ®Ti1'M<i<c,ftidi'yy ipn'ii a*w«h "W( 200 an^it'^T ('i?(3'<v') ^^<nw, ^rf^fl 3H^?T <• frdm Kar the due date (that is to say, have compieted thsir refresi However, the teachers, who after 31st December 1995, wo|j late of completion of refresh^r cases of those lecturers, wh< scale without completing refre< has been further. averred that ir. seiection srade scale from years of service respectively, sfl( priorto 31 December, 1995 the date they became eligibie) if they courses By 31 December, 1995. jiave compieted their refresher courses id be granted selection scale from the courses. It was aiso directed that the have been piaced in senior/seiection iher courses, wouid be reconsidered. it Isumber of candidates have been piaced date they compieted 13 years and 15 [ithout compietirig their refresher courses (^nnexureR-1/1). the We have heard iearned couns^ impu^ned necess^ry 6. Learned Tribunalby the impu^ the appiicant with a finding thi two optionai conditions that t'ne applicant must have pi courses of four weeks each, or) educational programme as pe| Grant Commission. Even if t| respondents is accepted that) condition of cornpleting two b®seen whether the second 4 not? Since the respondents ha'|i was not reguiariy attached w)' '<<)|*lt«tJt^ ^14<"ff ^f 1^3l"^R$R i& siRpi aii^i fortheparties. refilesh order has aliowed the appiication of apart from other conditions, there were for grant of selection grade scale, first rticipated in and completed two refresher he had been regularty attached v/ith any prescribed standards of the University ie argurnent advanced on behalf of the the applicant had not fulfi!led the first esher courses of four weeks each, it is to ilternative condition had been fulfiiled or 'e totaliy failed to prove that the apphcant th the educational programmes as per f95—11/2008—1,00,000. .^y dll^ll^Fft'fi'* ^i »iic fl«ll'Sfl<W »11tt» 93 *-^ '<ii<ii<l^, siTil-y'Ko; faoi'My NIICTI tB*ii«n '"""""'""""""""""""""""'"W^ZOO sn^t ''TOR' ('iq(3«i<t4) B«ii<ti<W^ aii^fl ? prescribed standards of the UGi compteting 16 years of servici decision of the Tribunal passed of MP and others. 7. it is not in dispute that the appl: instltution on 12.12.1974. The over by the government and as Assistant Professor by the by the respondents/State that| service on the senior time scal scale. However, the rulss we| 1995, whereby apart from othe| oniy thoseofficers, who have i\ weeks each, or in the ait^rnati^ educational programmes as pj would be entitled for seSection gt The question whether the pe| seiection grade from the date d date of completing refresher c<t year 2000 (Annexure R-1/1). 2000 was subsequently stayed.l the ground that before denyji respondents did not verify w|i conditions bythe applicant i.e.l °l>l«lIl!I<<ll^PRJf <f ?t tfil^lt ^ •oifa-H SH^T iC, he is entitled forselection scale after ;^. Reliance has been placed on the lin OA Nor492/95,V. Tamboli Vs. Sfate [cant was initialiy appointed in a private Isaid instltution was subsequently taken seh/ices of the applicant were regularized ^tate Govt. A policy decision was taken whoever has completed 16 years of le would be entifled for selection grade \e subsequentiy amended in the year conditions, it was also prescribed that (ndergone two refresher courses of four 1/s, who were reguiarly attached with the >r prescribed standards of the UGC, •son concerned woald be entitled for which he became eligible or from th® urse, was subsequently clarified in the s also not in dispute that the circular of The Tribunal allowed the appiication on the appiicant selection grade, the th respeet to fuifillment of the other whether he was regu!arly attached with LFS/9S—11/2008—1,00,000. 31)^1 ^RI R-ll* ^i'spih Wft <Sft^t SI»H Khan °)\ '3S[-yi<ii<n<i, ©•^•y're,f°i<iiyj,< *nt«irti>«<i<h "wi^oo ^D^T 'T^r ('i'iisi't?) any educational programmes as Apart from the above ground, tl other candidates, who did their granted se'.ection grade from tl same, however, the applicant w; date he became etigible i.e. 12.1' 9. Taking into consideration the s\ allowing the original app.lication ^ refresher courses after 1995, \A| date they became eligible for th| interference is caiied for in tH >ccordingiy,dismissed. <M<it<a<l^*i ^*^*^ fell<' ^^IK ^ <*iRtfl 4(T^t Iper prescribed standards of the UGC. te appiicant has also averred that the tfefresher coQrse after 1995, have been tlhe date they became eiigible for the jis denied the seiection grade from the i.1990. sasons assigned by the Tribuna! for ifthe applicant by the .impugned order, and further considerfrig that ot^er candidates, who completed their ere granted selection grade frorn the i same, we are of the opinion that no s impugned order. The petition is, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R-N- CHANDRAK^R. Judge