IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12395 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 16, 2009 Vivek .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Petitioner, Vivek, Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, has filed this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying issuance of a writ quashing Order dated 6.6.2008 (Annexure P-10) vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of Lecturer (Senior Scale) under the Career Advancement CWP No.12395 of 2008 [2] Scheme (for short, `the Scheme’) has been rejected. Prayer further made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release to the petitioner the scale of Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 17.7.2006 i.e. the date on which the petitioner completed six years of service and became eligible for grant of Lecturer (Senior Scale) under the Scheme. The petitioner was selected against a regular post on 19.5.2000. The petitioner joined duties as a Lecturer on 17.7.2000. The period of probation was completed satisfactorily on 17.7.2002. No adverse remarks were ever conveyed to the petitioner and therefore, it has been asserted that the service record of the petitioner is clean and good. It has also been brought out that a large number of papers have been published by the petitioner and a number of conferences have been attended. In addition to the normal duties of Lecturer, the petitioner had been assigned additional duties, such as Hostel Warden, Incharge of Lawn Tennis, Coordinator FETE, Adviser to students and Incharge of Energy Park (project of Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Government of India), Member College CWP No.12395 of 2008 [3] Editorial Board, Member Cultural Council of the College which the petitioner performed satisfactorily. All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi published guidelines dated 31.7.2001 (Annexure P-4) for grant of higher pay scale under the Scheme in respect of teachers for the degree level institutions. Relevant portion of Annexure P-4 reads as under:- “1.2.0 Lecturer (Senior Scale) A lecturer will be eligible for placement in a senior scale through a procedure of selection, if she/he has: (i) Completed 6 years of service after regular appointment with relaxation of one year and two years, respectively, for those with M.Phil. M.E./ M.Tech. and Ph.D. (ii) Participated in summer/winter schools of total duration of 4 weeks, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programme of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). (iii) Consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports.” The Government has issued Notification (Annexure P-5), the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “The length of service required to qualify for senior scale and selection grade in respect of lecturers and from Asstt. Professor to Professor grade, shall be granted only with reference to the continuous service of the teacher in that particular college and no benefit of previous service shall be given without prior approval of the Government, whether or not the previous college was promoted by the Punjab Government.” The Notification further provides that “requirement of consistency, satisfactory performance appraisal shall be CWP No.12395 of 2008 [4] the mandatory requirement for the Career Advancement Scheme from Lecturer to Lecturer (senior scale) and from Lecturer (Senior Scale) to Lecturer (Selection Grade) Assistant Professor.” Learned counsel contends that earlier the Scheme was followed in its spirit. Of late, a committee has been formulated. The committee has not laid down any criteria and is rather working whimsically. In the case of the petitioner, respondent No.3, who is Principal of the College where petitioner has been serving, is one of the members of the Committee. Respondent No.3 is inimical and therefore, the petitioner has not been given his due under the guidelines and notification issued by the Government, to which reference has been made. Learned counsel has pointed out that there being nothing adverse against the petitioner, considering the spirit of the guidelines, on the completion of required period of six years, the petitioner became entitled to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale). Learned counsel for the respondent- State has contended that in such cases, selection is made by a committee. The petitioner could not pass the selection procedure. I have considered the issue. Learned counsel for the respondent- CWP No.12395 of 2008 [5] State has not been able to detail the criteria adopted by the so-called selection committee. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not earned any adverse report, and there is nothing adverse in the service record of the petitioner so as to show that the petitioner would not fall within the four corners of the Scheme and notification extracted above. The extracted portion of the guidelines and the scheme do not, anywhere, provide any process of selection. Guidelines and the notification seem to be, `length of service required to qualify for senior scale and selection grade and appraisal reports’. There is no report that indicates that performance of the petitioner had been bad at any given time. Nothing has been indicated to say that the petitioner has not been working consistently or satisfactorily. In such circumstances, the criteria adopted by the committee is not clear to the Court. This petition is decided with directions to respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, to consider the case of the petitioner in the context of the guidelines CWP No.12395 of 2008 [6] and the instructions, without reference to the proceedings of the so-called selection committee and take a decision in regard to the claim of the petitioner. While considering the issue, the Secretary shall also consider as to whether the procedure adopted by the respondent-State is in conformity and whether it serves the purpose for which Career Advancement Scheme had been introduced. The Secretary shall take the decision within six weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (AJAI LAMBA) July 16, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?