THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 22249 OF 1994 Date: 18.11.2006 Between: Smt. S. Vadavathi and 45 others. … Petitioners. And Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams rep., by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi and two others. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 22249 OF 1994 ORDER: Petitioners, 46 in number, seek a mandamus from this Court, to respondents 1 and 2, to reckon their service, as tutors/demonstrators prior to 01- 04-1976, for extension of benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme in the University Grants Commission Revised Scales of Pay, 1986, as adopted by the respondents under G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 15-12-1988 and G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07-07-1990, with all consequential and attendant benefits. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners, (when the writ petition was filed in 1994), were working as lecturers in the Sri Venkateswara Arts College, the Sri Padmavathi Women’s College, and the Sri Govindaraja Swamy Arts College, Tirupathi under the administrative control of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. They were all appointed as tutors/demonstrators prior to 01-04-1976. Petitioners would contend that, the first respondent has been extending them the benefit of pay scales on par with teachers in other government degree colleges and in accordance with the government orders, issued by the second respondent, from time to time. Petitioners would refer to the letter of the Government of India, dated 02-11-1974, whereby the State Government was informed of their decision to implement the scheme of revised pay scales of University and College Teachers in the Central Universities and other institutions, fully financed by the Central Government, with effect from 01-01-1973, and to have indicated their willingness to assist the State Governments, which wished to adopt the revised scales of pay for University and College teachers in the State, subject to the conditions contained therein. The second respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.1376, dated 01-12-1975, extending the benefits, of the revised state dearness allowance and merger of pay scales, to college teachers with effect from 01-01-1974. Pursuant to a report, submitted by a three member committee, the state government accepted their recommendations, subject to certain modifications, and issued G.O.Ms.1072, dated 26-11-1976 directing that the Revised Pay Scales, 1976, shall be made applicable to teachers of affiliated degree and post-graduate colleges, whether government or private and whether aided or partly aided etc, subject to the conditions prescribed in column (6) of Annexure-I to the order. According to the petitioners these pay scales were made applicable to them, and to other teachers, working in colleges administered by the first respondent. Petitioners would contend that, in accordance with the provisions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 1072, dated 26-11-1976, all the petitioners were treated as lecturers with effect from 01- 04-1976 and were given the benefit of pay scales as applicable to lecturers. Petitioners would submit that, while applying the Revised Pay Scales of 1976, the second respondent had ordered that fixation of pay must be under the normal rules, and where the existing pay did not correspond to a stage in the Revised Pay Scales of 1976, it would be fixed in the next higher stage in the 1976 revised scales of pay. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 29-06-1982, whereunder it was decided to extend the benefit of service weightage to lecturers in degree colleges drawing pay in 1976 scales as on 01-04-1978. Petitioners would refer to paragraph 7 of the said order, whereunder the service rendered by tutors/demonstrators/assistant lecturers/junior lecturers in degree colleges, on or after 01-01-1973, was required to be taken into account in the ratio of two years of service, as tutors/ demonstrators/assistant lecturers/junior lecturers, in degree colleges as equivalent to one year service as lecturer and on this basis, the total service as a lecturer was to be arrived at for the purpose of grant of weightage increments. Petitioners would submit that the orders, issued in G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 29-06-1982, were amended in G.O.Ms.No.748, dated 30-08-1982 and the benefits therein were extended to the petitioners by the first respondent taking their service as tutors/demonstrators into account and on that basis their pay, in the post of lecturers, was fixed. Petitioners would submit that the University Grants Commission scales of pay were again revised in the year 1986 and these revised pay scales were extended, vide G.O.Ms. No. 520 dated 15.12.1988, to all teachers in universities and affiliated degree and post-graduate colleges, government or private aided colleges, and that the said scales of pay came into effect from 01-01-1986. Reference is made to paragraph 9(b) relating to the Career Advancement Scheme and to the criteria laid down thereunder, and to paragraph 10 which relates to grant of senior scales of pay. Petitioners would submit that, under G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07-07-1990, the government had issued orders for implementation of the Career Advancement Scheme and that the benefits under the said G.O. were given, by the first respondent, to all the lecturers working in the colleges under its administrative control. Petitioners, though given the benefit of revised pay scales of lecturers (senior scale) of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000, were not given the scale of pay of lecturers selection grade of Rs.3700-5700, inasmuch as the weightage of service rendered as tutors/administrators, prior to 01-04-1976, was not reckoned as was done in the case of assistant lecturers. According to the petitioners, they were given the benefit of selection grade pay scales only on completion of 16 years service after 01-04-1976 and, if the service rendered by them as tutors/demonstrators prior to 01-04-1976 was also reckoned and due weightage given thereto, they would be entitled to the selection grade scales of pay from 01-01-1986. Petitioners would contend that, while prior to 01-04-1976, there were three categories viz., (i) tutors/demonstrators; (ii) lecturers and (iii) professors and heads of departments, after 01-04-1976, there were only two categories of teaching staff i.e. lecturers and principals and the earlier posts of tutors, demonstrators and junior lecturers ceased to exist. Petitioners would submit that, while fixing the 1976 revised pay scales due weightage was given to the service rendered by them earlier as tutors, demonstrators, junior lecturers and assistant lecturers and all of them were treated as one group, that the said benefit was not extended to them while implementing the revised University Grants Commission 1986 Scales of Pay under G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 15-12-1988 and G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07-07-1990, and that failure to do so was unjust and arbitrary. Petitioners would submit that under G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07-07-1990, while computing the prescribed period of 8/16 years of service, while the earlier service rendered as assistant lecturers in government degree colleges, prior to 01-04-1976, was reckoned for grant of senior or selection grade scales of pay of lecturers, the said benefit was not extended to the erstwhile tutors and demonstrators. Petitioners would submit that, while tutors, demonstrators and assistant lecturers were treated as one group i.e., lecturers from 01-04-1976 onwards, when it came to extension of the benefit of weightage of service rendered prior to 01-04-1976, the respondents had discriminated against the petitioners and had treated the erstwhile tutors and demonstrators different from the assistant lecturers. Petitioners would contend that the representation made by their Association on 30-03-1994, and their cause espoused by the Federation of the A.P. College Teachers Association, was futile and that the government had not considered their request favourably. According to the petitioners, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.825, dated 01-09-1993 reckoning the past service in the post of tutors and demonstrators for extension of the benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme even in the absence of guidelines in this regard being prescribed by the University Grants Commission. Petitioners would submit that there was no valid and justifiable reason for the second respondent not to extend to them similar benefits as was extended to the erstwhile assistant lecturers. The first respondent, in its counter affidavit, would submit that the rules and instructions issued by the government, from time to time, are applicable only when they are adopted by the TTD Trust Board with the prior sanction of the Government and that, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26-11-1976, eligible tutors, demonstrators and assistant lecturers were designated as lecturers. Reference is made to G.O.Ms. No.565, dated 29-06-1982, as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 748, dated 30-08-1982, to submit that weightage increments were given, to all those teaching staff who were absorbed as lecturers, taking into account their previous service in the category of tutors/demonstrators in the ratio of 2:1. It is stated that the lecturers, who had completed 8 or 16 years of service and satisfied the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.520 dated 15-12-1988, and G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07-07-1990, were placed in the higher scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000 and Rs.3700-5700 respectively, that the first respondent had given effect to the Career Advancement Scheme, in letter and spirit, and that the question of extension of the benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme, taking into account the service rendered by the petitioners as tutors and demonstrators does not arise. It is stated that the service rendered by the petitioners, after 01-03-1973 and prior to 01-04-1976, was considered for the purpose of sanctioning revised pay scales and not for other benefits. Reference is made to Civil Appeal No. 5492 of 1993, in B. Rama Rao v. Govt. of A.P.[1] to contend that a similar request was negatived by the Supreme Court. In its additional counter affidavit, dated 25-08-2005, the first respondent would state that the petitioners have been granted all such benefits, as per the rules, counting the service put in by them in the cadres of tutors and demonstrators. The first respondent would submit that the claim of the petitioners, in the present writ petition, cannot be accepted as the rules in force disentitled them from being granted the said benefit of counting their service in the cadre of tutors and demonstrators for the purpose of computing 8 or 16 years of service in the cadre of lecturers. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07-07- 1990, specifically allows such service to be counted only in government colleges and, since the petitioners are working in private unaided colleges, the said G.O. is not applicable to them. It is further stated that there were no posts of assistant lecturers in any of the colleges of the first respondent, including during the period prior to 01-04-1976, and on this count also, the said G.O. was not applicable. It is contended that both the career advancement scheme and the automatic advancement scheme had been specifically implemented to avoid stagnation in a single cadre and are applicable to those who had put in the requisite number of years of service in the cadre of lecturers and, since the petitioners were all working as tutors and demonstrators in the colleges of the first respondent prior to 1976 and had all been merged thereafter into the single cadre of lecturers, which is in a higher cadre, the purpose of the scheme to avoid stagnation had been achieved and it is only after these employees have put in 8 or 16 years service in the cadre of lecturers would they be entitled to the said benefit. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education has filed a counter affidavit, on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, wherein it is stated that the tutors and demonstrators, who were earlier in the pay scales of Rs.430-800 in the DA merged scales, but had not passed post-graduation in first and second class with 50% or more marks, were placed in the 1976 revised pay scales of Rs.500-900 and those tutors/demonstrators/ junior lecturers/assistant lecturers, who possessed M.Phil/M.Litt/Ph.D qualification were placed in the higher pay scales of Rs.700-1600. It is stated that the tutors/demonstrators, who had passed post graduation in first and second class and had secured 50% or above marks, on completion of 10 years of service, were re-designated as lecturers as per column VI at Sl.No.5 of Annexure-I to G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26-11-1976, and that the revised pay scales came into force only from 01-04-1976 as the State DA merged pay scales were already made applicable to these teachers as per G.O.Ms.No.1376 dated 01-12-1975. It is stated that the career advancement scheme was introduced by the state government in G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 15-12-1988, on the basis of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and that the 1986 pay scales were extended to the university and affiliated colleges. Respondents would submit that the career advancement scheme was made applicable to lecturers and readers as per Rule 9B(1) of the appendix to the said G.O., and since the petitioners were only tutors and demonstrators prior to 01-04-1976 and as G.O.Ms. No. 1072 dated 26-11-1976 came into force only with effect from 01-04-1976, the question of giving them weightage increments, taking into account the service rendered by them prior thereto, did not arise. Reference is made to the University Grants Commission circular dated 27-11-1990 wherein, while reiterating its earlier decision in its letter dated 29-01-1990, it was stated that the matter had been reconsidered and it was resolved that revised guidelines, for counting previous service for the purpose of senior scale/ selection grade scale under the Career Advancement Scheme for lecturers, be issued as under:- 1. The post is in equivalent grade or scale of pay to that of the post of lecturer. 2. The qualifications for the post is not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of lecturer. 3. The lecturers concerned possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment as lecturers etc. It is stated that, in view of the above circular of the University Grants Commission, counting of previous service for extension of senior scale or selection grade scale, under the career advancement scheme, could be made only if the incumbent possessed the requisite qualifications, and that the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, is silent on aspects as to how the petitioners were appointed, whether the appointment was ad hoc, in a leave vacancy or was regular or whether their pay scales prior to 01-04-1976 was that of a lecturer or equivalent to that grade. It is stated that the petitioners have neither given details of their qualifications nor have they stated that they possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission for appointment as a lecturer prior to 01-04-1976. It is stated that, as the posts of assistant lecturers carried an equivalent scale of pay as that of lecturers, the University Grants Commission had specifically given the benefit only to those persons who possessed the requisite qualifications, that the state government could not extend this benefit, to tutors and demonstrators, contrary to the guidelines of the University Grants Commission and, if any of the petitioners fit within the stipulation as mentioned in the U.G.C. circular dated 27-11-1990, they would be entitled to get their service, rendered prior to 01-04-1976, counted for the purpose of the career advancement scheme. Respondents deny the allegation that not extending the benefit of weightage of service prior to 01-04-1976, to those lecturers who were earlier tutors or demonstrators, would amount to hostile discrimination. It is stated that, even as per G.O.Ms. No. 565, dated 29-06-1982, read with G.O.Ms. No. 748, dated 30-08-1982, previous service was counted, for the purpose of giving benefit of weightage, only from 01-01-1973 and that this service was considered only for the purpose of sanctioning weightage increments with a view to fix up the pay in the revised pay scales of 1976 and not for other purposes. It is stated that the service rendered by the petitioners, as tutors/ demonstrators/junior lecturers, prior to 01-04-1976, could not be considered for the purpose of computation of benefits under the career advancement scheme and that the service rendered, during the period 01-01-1973 to 31-03-1976, by the assistant lecturers was taken into consideration for sanction of weightage increments on par with lecturers only in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. According to the respondents, the request of the Federation for reckoning the service of the erstwhile tutors/demonstrators/junior lecturers for benefits under the career advancement scheme could not be considered favourably in view of the absence of any specific provision in the University Grants Commission’s guidelines in this regard. Respondents would contend that the petitioners could not compare themselves with tutors and demonstrators in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the State of Andhra Pradesh is not bound by the guidelines issued by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Reference is made to Act 9 of 2000 and to Ordinances 3 of 2005 to submit that the period of un- aided service would not be counted for any purpose including the career advancement scheme. Reference is also made to the observations of this Court, in W.P. No. 8697 of 2005 dated 07-11-2005, holding that the government had no obligation to render financial assistance to private institutions where education was imparted to students above the age of 14 years. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that since tutors, demonstrators and assistant lecturers were all merged into the cadre of lecturers with effect from 01-04-1976, under G.O.Ms.No.1072 dated 26- 11-1976, and were given the benefit of revised pay scales, the respondents were not entitled to discriminate, between assistant lecturers on the one hand and tutors and demonstrators on the other, while giving them the benefit of weightage of service, rendered prior to 01-04-1976, for computation of benefits under the career advancement scheme. Learned counsel would submit that tutors, demonstrators and assistant lecturers form one single class and the respondents, having chosen to treat them as one class, were not entitled to differentiate between them while extending to them the benefits under the career advancement scheme. Learned counsel would submit that such differentiation amounts to hostile discrimination which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the Learned counsel, since G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07-07- 1990 extended the benefits of the career advancement scheme to those who were earlier working as assistant lecturers and were treated as lecturers with effect from 01-04-1976, the petitioners who were similarly situated were entitled to have their service, as tutors or demonstrators, rendered prior to 01-04-1976, also to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of the 8 years or 16 years service required for grant of the senior scales and the selection grade scales under the career advancement scheme. Learned counsel would submit that the government orders, issued from time to time, are binding on the first respondent-TTD and the mere fact that the colleges of the first respondent did not have the cadre of assistant lecturer would not disentitle the petitioners from claiming benefits under G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 07-07-1990 inasmuch as the said G.O. is applicable to the colleges of the TTD also. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, on the other hand, would submit that the benefits of the career advancement scheme, as extended by the government to its colleges and to private aided colleges, was strictly in accordance with the University Grants Commission guidelines. She would submit that, since the University Grants Commission’s guidelines did not specifically provide for giving weightage of the service rendered by tutors/demonstrators, prior to 01-04-1976, for computation of the minimum service required of 8 years or 16 years service under the career advancement scheme, the state government had restricted the said benefit only to assistant lectures. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the plea of discrimination is without basis since, both prior to 01-04-1976 and thereafter, the erstwhile tutors and demonstrators have never been treated on par with assistant lectures. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, even while merging tutors, demonstrators and assistant lectures into the cadre of lecturers, the assistant lectures were placed in a higher scale of pay than tutors and demonstrators. She would submit that, even prior to 01-04-1976, the scales of pay applicable to tutors and demonstrators were lower than that of assistant lecturers. She would also refer to the categories specified in G.O.Ms.No.1376, dated 01-12-1975 to submit that, while assistant lectures were placed in category nine, tutors and demonstrators were placed in category eleven. She would refer to G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26-11-1976, to submit that even in Annexure-I to the said G.O., assistant lecturers working in degree colleges fell under Category II, whereas tutors and demonstrators fell under Category V. She would refer to G.O.Ms.No.719 dated 03-07-1978 in support of her submission that, while granting the benefits of the A.P. Revised Pay Scales, the minimum required service for assistant lectures was reduced from five years to three years, whereas for tutors and demonstrators it was reduced to five years from 10 years. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, even in other government orders, this distinction has always been maintained and, despite merging all these posts into the cadre of lecturers, tutors and demonstrators have never been treated on par with assistant lecturers. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, since the erstwhile assistant lecturers, tutors and demonstrators do not constitute one single class, and fall under separate and distinct categories, the question of discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India does not arise. Learned Government Pleader would place reliance on the University Grants Commission’s letter dated 27.09.1990 wherein reference is made to its earlier letter dated 29.01.1990 containing the decision of the Commission regarding counting the experience of a person, before appointment as a lecturer in the university/college, as qualifying service for placement in the senior scale/selection grade scale. The Commission, in consultation with the Ministry of Human Resources Development, reconsidered the matter in its meeting held on 11.10.1990 and resolved to revise the guidelines for counting of previous service for purposes of senior scale/selection grade scale under the career advancement scheme for lecturers. The revised guidelines provided that the previous service, rendered without any break as a lecturer or equivalent in a university/college, should be counted for placement of lecturers in senior scale/selection grade scale subject to the restrictions provided thereunder. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the State Government is bound by the U.G.C. guidelines and, in the absence of any particulars being furnished by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the conditions stipulated in the guidelines were fulfilled, the question of counting their service prior to 01.04.1976, for the purpose of granting them the benefit of senior scale/selection grade scale, does not arise. Learned Government Pleader would also place reliance on the provisions of the A.P. Private Aided Collegiate and Technical Education Employees (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2006, (Act 26 of 2006), more particular to Section 4 thereof, to contend that the claims made by the petitioners herein cannot be entertained by the government. Sri S. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel of the first respondent, would fairly submit that in accordance with the rules, notified in G.O.Ms.No.1060 dated 24-10-1989, the executive instructions and other government orders issued, from time to time, by the government in respect of its employees, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, and the Rules made thereunder, are applicable to employees of the T.T.D. also. Learned Counsel would submit that, under the proviso to Rule 9(1), in case of teaching staff of educational institutions affiliated to any university or government, the rules of the government or university, in respect of qualifications, method of recruitment, pay, allowances etc, shall apply. Learned Standing counsel, while fairly stating that the government orders, in respect of teaching staff, would apply to TTD institutions also, would adopt the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and reiterate that, since assistant lectures, tutors and demonstrators do not constitute one class and, as they have always been treated as distinct categories despite their being brought under the cadre of lecturers, the plea of hostile discrimination was unfounded and the respondents herein cannot be said to have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned standing counsel would submit that, in so far as