IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 7818 of 2001(E) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.BHANU PRAKASH SINGH, LECTURER, B.ED COLLEGE, DAKSHINA BHARAT HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DAKSHINA BHARAT HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, CHENNAI - 600 017. 2. UCHCHA SIKSHA AUR SHODH SANSTHAN, REP. BY ITS KULASACHIV, DAKSHINA BHARAT HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, CHENNAI - 600 017. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 7818/2001. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.15.11.96. P1A. COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF Ext.P1. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.6.99 BY THE SECRETARY OF R1. P2A. COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ABOVE. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.10.99 OF R1. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.3.2000 BY R2. P4A. COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ABOVE. P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.5.7.2000. P5A. COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ABOVE. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.10.2000. P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.7.12.2000 TO R2. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.24.12.98 OF UGC. P9. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.17.6.99 OF NCTE. P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.24.4.2000 OF NCTE. P11. COPY OF THE order dtd.10.7.2000 by R2. P12. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.D10.9.99 OF R2. P13. COPY OF THE NORMS OF NCTE FOR M.ED. P14. COPY OF THE letter dtd.5.1.2004 of NCTE. P15. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.1.7.99 OF NCTE. P16. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.11.97 OF DY. REGISTRAR. P17. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.24.5.99 -DO- P18. COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE. P19. COPY OF THE THREE NOTICES. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.8.10.99 BY THE PETITIONER. B. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 34311/99 OF HIGH COURT KARNATAKA. ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 7818 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T In this original petition the petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, wherein, the petitioner, who was working as Principal in B.Ed. College, Thiruvananthapuram, under the 1st respondent has been transferred and posted as Lecturer in Education in B.Ed. College, Ernakulam, under the 1st respondent. The petitioner was originally directly appointed as Head of Department, which, according to the petitioner, is equivalent to the post of Principal, in the P.G. Education Department of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, from 16.11.1996 to 31.5.1997, by Ext.P1 order. While so, in 1999 on the ground that the NCTE objected to starting of new P.G programmes without recognition, by Ext.P2 dated 19.6.1999, the petitioner was asked to submit his willingness to be posted as Principal in other B.Ed. Colleges except Dharwad, under the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that, as per Ext.P15, the requirement of recognition was restricted to new P.G. Courses by the NCTE and, therefore, the petitioner requested the 1st respondent that he may not be transferred as originally proposed. Since this was not considered favourably, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the o.p.7818/01 2 Karnataka High Court against the proposed action. The petitioner could not obtain any interim order. Therefore, he withdrew the writ petition without prejudice to his right to approach the Court again, if necessary. Thereafter, he expressed his willingness to be posted as Principal in any other B.Ed. College. By Ext.P3 dated 14.10.1999, the petitioner was posted as I/C Principal at the College of Education of the 1st respondent at Mysore. Subsequently, by Ext.P4 dated 13.3.2000, he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram, as Principal. However, he was not paid any salary on the alleged ground that orders have to be received from Chennai. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation dated 5.7.2000, to which he received no reply. Subsequently, by Ext.P6 order dated 5.10.2000, he was transferred and posted as Lecturer in Education in B.Ed. College, Ernakulam. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order and seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for the records relating to Ext.P6 and quash the same, by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order; ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service as Principal/Head of the Department/Professor and that the petitioner is not liable to be reverted. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents to post the petitioner as Principal in any of the Colleges under them with effect from 5.10.2000; iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to place the petitioner in the UGC pay scale of Rs.16400-450-20900-500-22400 with effect from 1.1.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits; v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner DA, HRA, o.p.7818/01 3 CCA and other allowances at the rates applicable to Central Government employees, with effect from 1.1.1996; vi) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary and allowances due to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996, with interest @ 18%.” 2. The petitioner submits that he never opted to be reverted as Lecturer at any time. On the other hand, he would submit that all along he was being recognised as a Principal as is evident from Exts.P6, P17 and P18, in which, he was referred to as Professor and Head of Department. Further, in Ext.P19 series constituting selection committees for selection to the post of Lecturers under the 1st respondent, the petitioner was included. According to the petitioner, no Lecturer could have been included in the selection committee for selecting lecturers, which also, would go to show that he was actually a Professor/Principal. The further contention of the petitioner is that as per the NCTE norms, for recognition of B.Ed. College by the NCTE, payment of salary to teachers as per UGC/State scales of pay is mandatory and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary in the UGC scales of pay applicable to principals, which has not been paid to the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which, they have strongly disputed the claim of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner was appointed at o.p.7818/01 4 Dharwad, temporarily for a specific period and when the NCTE insisted on recognition for continuation of the P.G. Programmes at Darward, the petitioner had to be retrenched from the service and, on purely humanitarian grounds the petitioner has been offered a post of Principal in other colleges. It is pointed out that the petitioner was subsequently appointed as in-charge Principal only. As such, he was never a Principal at all. Subsequently, when the College at Thiruvananthapuram became non-functional, the respondents had no other go, but to post the petitioner as Lecturer, for which only the petitioner had a suitable place at Ernakulam. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in paragraph 4 of the original petition the petitioner has pointed out that the posts of Principal were vacant at Belgaon, Bijapur and in Visakhapattanam, which the respondents have not cared to deny. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner had to be reverted as Lecturer and posted at Ernakulam is totally unsustainable. 5. The counsel for the respondents would also contend that the respondents have never implemented UGC scales of pay prior to 2004 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the scale of pay as per UGC scheme, even if the petitioner is entitled to be posted as o.p.7818/01 5 Principal. 6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 7. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner was originally appointed as HoD at Darwad. It is also not disputed before me that the post of HoD in P.G. Department is equivalent to that of Principal in all B.Ed. Colleges. Even if for humanitarian reasons if the respondents had chosen to appoint the petitioner as in charge principal at Mysore and then at Thiruvananthapuram, they cannot unilaterally without any consent from the petitioner revert him as Lecturer. In fact the documents produced by the petitioner as Exts.P17, P18 and P19 series, without any doubt, show that the respondents themselves treated the petitioner as Professor all along until Ext.P6. The respondents also could not satisfy me as to how in spite of avaibility of vacancies at Belgaon, Bijapur and in Visakhapattanam, the petitioner could not be accommodated in one of these places as Principal and as to why, they chose to appoint him as Lecturer at Ernakulam, that too, without the petitioner's consent. 8. The counsel for the respondents, citing a counter affidavit dated 27.10.2004 would contend that the respondents had denied the averment of the petitioner that there were vacancies at Belgaon, Bijapur and in Visakhapattanam, which counter affidavit is not in the file. Of course the counsel for the petitioner admits that he has o.p.7818/01 6 received a copy of the same. But I find that the counter affidavit available in the file is dated 28.10.2004. I am at a loss to understand why the respondents filed two counter affidavits one on 27.10.2004 and another on 28.10.2004. In any event, I can only go by the counter affidavit which is on record. From the pleadings available before me, I have no doubt whatsoever that the respondents themselves treated the petitioner all along as Professor and as Principal. He was posted as Principal at Mysore and Thiruvananthapuram, even though the counsel for the respondents would point out that he was posted only as in- charge Principal. Whatever that be, the petitioner could not have been reverted as Lecturer without his written consent, especially when the petitioner had never worked as Lecturer in any colleges under the 1st respondent. That being so, the petitioner could not have been reverted as Lecturer by Ext.P6. Accordingly Ext.P6 is quashed. In another original petition filed by another Principal of the colleges under the respondents, viz., O.P.No.32944/2000, I had categorically held that for the principals in colleges under the respondents, the respondents are bound to pay salary to their teachers as per the UGC scales of pay in so far as it is a mandatory condition for recognition of the NCTE. Following that judgment I hold that the petitioner is entitled to UGC scale of pay also in the post of Principal. 9. Now the question arises is as to what should be the relief o.p.7818/01 7 to be granted to the petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner has left the service of the respondents in January, 2007. Therefore, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is arrears of pay. In the above circumstances, from 5.10.2000, which is the date of Ext.P6, the petitioner shall be paid arrears of salary as Princsripal in accordance with the UGC scale of pay applicable to principals till January, 2007, when he left the service of the respondents. Orders shall be passed and arrears disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 7818 of 2001-E ================== J U D G M E N T 26th February, 2009