Case: B. Venkata Reddy and Others Etc Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

The main judgment of the Tribunal in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch is in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 in accordance with which the other Representation Petitions in the batch have been disposed of as stated elsewhere in this judgment. Representation Petition 595 of 1977 was filed by seven petitioners of whom petitioners Nos 1 to 6 were working as Principals of Junior Colleges at various places while the seventh petit ioner was working as a Junior Lecturer in Government College, Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh and claimed to be ripe for promotion as Principal of Junior College on the basis of his original seniority among junior Lecturers. We will refers to the parties in these appears as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake ofseven petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 who were working as Post-Graduate Assistants or Headmasters in the Zilla Parishad Higher Secondary Schools at different places were appointed as junior Lecturers in 1969 as they were all Post-Graduates who had passed in the first or second class with 50% marks and above and were fully eligible for appointment as Junior Lecturers. The petitioners contention is that under the Adhoc Rules governing Junior Lecturers they being Post-Graduates who had passed in first or second class, should be placed in the seniority list above Post Graduate Assistants who hold only third class Post-Graduate degrees. The second respondent, joint Director of Higher Education, Andhra Pradesh, prepared a subject-wise seniority list in 1974 as per the rules, , placing the seven petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 at Nos. 17, 15, 20, 21, 23, 40 and 41 respectively. On the basis of that seniority Junior Lecturers upto the rank of 40 in that list were promoted as Principals of various junior Colleges. The 1st respondent State of Andhra Pradesh, prepared a revised seniority list as per the directions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 4358 of 1974 and Writ Appeal No. 920 of 1975. In that revised seniority list issued in 1976 the petitioners in Representation Petition 59 5 of 1977 have been placed at Nos. 380, 54, 390, 392, 406, 368 and 374 respectively. The petitioners contention was that third class Post-Graduate degree holders who were appointed for the first time in 1970 and 1975 as junior Lecturers were shown in the said revised seniority list as seniors to the petitioners though the petitioners had all been appointed as junior Lecturers in 1969 itself and were regularised as early as in November 1969 and under the Adhoc Rules framed by the Government, Post-Graduate Assistants with first and second class Post-Graduate degrees should be treated as one group and as senior to Post-Graduate Assistants with third class Post Graduate degrees, who should be treated as another group. T he petitioners in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 prayed in these circumstances for quashing the revised seniority list issued by the first respondent State of Andhra Pradesh on 27.12.1976 so far as they are concerned and for rest oration of their old seniority as per the earlier seniority list of 1974 or in the alternative for declaring that Rule 13 (1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 dealing with seniority of Junior Lecturers is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Reasoning:
In these circumstances we hold that Rule 13(1) of the Adhoc Rules, 1973 has to be interpreted in the manner indicated above, and seniority has to be fixed accordingly and there is no need to quash that rule and that the impugned seniority list of 1976 has to be quashed and the seniority list of 1974 has to be restored. It would follow that the first prayer in Civil Appeal 415 of 1979 regarding fixing of seniority as prayed for by third class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers has to be rejected and it is accordinglynow to the only point argued by Mr. S. N. Kackar, Senior Advocate for the petitioners in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976 (Civil Appeal 415 of 1979) that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 prescribing a first or second class Post Graduate Degree for a Junior Lecturers promotion as Principal of a Junior College, thereby excluding third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers from eligibility for promotion as Principals, we would like to state at the outset that the contention put forward before the Tribunal that the posts of Principals are administrative posts and no teaching experience is required is incorrect. The Director of Public Instructions has stated in his Proceedings Rc. No. 1068/IC-4/70 dated 16.1.1971 that Principals of Junior Colleges must take at least six periods of work per week if not more. Therefore, Principals of Junior Colleges have to take up teaching work in addition to their administrative duties. They are administrative heads of Junior Colleges where first, second and third class Post Graduates work as Junior Lecturers. They have to exercise administrative control over first, second and third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers. I. is therefore very desirable that the Principals should be first or second class Post Graduates . Post of Principals of Junior Colleges are gazetted while those of Junior Lecturers of those colleges are not gazetted. According to G.O.Ms. 2068, Education, dated 25.8.1969 Principals of Junior Colleges will have the status of Senior Lecturers in Degree Colleges and their pay scale is Rs. 400-800 while the pay scale of Junior Lecturers is Rs. 200-15-320-20-500. The object of achieving excellence in educational institutions like Junior Colleges is a laudable one, and excellence in academic attainments of heads of such institutions is a relevant fact. Promotion of Junior lecturers as Principals is based only on merit judged by their academic distinction which cannot be said to be discriminatory. The ratio of t his Courts decision in S. M. Pandit v. State of Gujarat(1) referred to above cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Prescribing a first or second class Post- Graduate Degree for the head of an educational institution has a direct nexus with the object of excellence sought to be achieved, and it cannot be said to be discriminatory. Therefore, we do not think that Rule 6 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 is liable to be struck down as being discriminatory and illegal.Pending the framing of Adhoc Rules for the temporary posts of Principals of Junior Colleges, the Director of Public Instructions issued proceedings in Rc 775-Cl/2/74 dated 14.3.1974 promoting under Rule 10(a) (i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules seven third class Post Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges. The third prayer in Transferred Writ Petition 7146 of 1976 is that those appointments should be declared as illegal. Under Rule 6(ii) of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 framed subsequently in G.O.Ms. 502, Education, dated 19.6.1974 three years service in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service is prescribed as a qualification for promotion of Junior Lecturers as Principals of Junior Colleges in addition to a first or second class Post Graduate Degree. It is not known whether when those promotions of seven 4 third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers as Principals were made first or second class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers were not available for promotion or why after the Adhoc Rules, 1974 were framed within about three months thereafter those third class Post-Graduate Junior Lecturers were not reverted as Junior Lecturers. Their promotions were irregular having regard to the fact that even for appointment as Junior Lecturers preference has to be given to first and second class Post- Graduate School Assistants. The irregularity has been sought to be overlooked by providing a saving clause by way of Rule 8 of the Adhoc Rules, 1974 where it is stated that notwithstanding anything contained in those rules a person who F held the post of Principal of a Junior College immediately before the issue of those rules and who was not appointed in accordance with those rules, shall be continued as Principal and he is given an option either to continue in the post of Principal or to revert to his original post. We do not think that there could have been any valid necessity to continue those adhoc promotions made even after the Adhoc Rules, 1974 were framed within about three months of those promotions. We think that there is no meaning in providing for the option in that rule as it is not likely that a person who has been promoted as Principal in the grade of Rs. 400-800 would voluntarily opt for reverting to his original post of Junior Lecturer in the grade of Rs. 200-15-320-20-500. However, having regard to the long lapse of time we do not think it desirable to declare those appointments as illegal.