National Institute Of Technology vs U Dinakar And Anr

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

4. On 19th April, 1988, the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, issued another order to the effect that the non-academic post of Registrar, Librarian and Foremen in the Regional Engineering Colleges be given State pay scales comparable to pay scales in similar other institutions in the State. It was decided that an option may be sought from the present incumbents whether they would like to opt for the Central scales of pay or State scales of pay. Those who may opt for Central Scales of pay their posts may be convened into the State Scales of pay as and when the present incumbents to the posts leave the job or retire. In due course of time all the posts are converted into State scales of pay. Thus, for new incumbents it was ordered to give State scales of pay. The relevant extract of the order dated 19th April, 1988 which is necessary for adjudication of this appeal is as under:

9. Pursuant to the said advertisement, respondent No.1 applied for the post of Registrar of the appellant Institute. The Selection Committee of the appellant-Institute selected respondent No.1 for the said post and issued the appointment letter No.5487/ESTT/1994/91 dated 16th February, 1995.

11. When the appellant-Institute discovered that respondent No.1 was drawing a salary higher than what he was entitled to due to the anomaly in the advertisement and the letter of appointment, it appointed a five- members Enquiry Committee, which comprised of respondent No.2 herein as the Chairman and 4 other Members, to look into the matter. The Enquiry Committee issued a show cause notice dated 23rd January, 1998 to respondent No.1 seeking explanation for the aforesaid anomaly. Later, another show cause notice was issued to respondent No.1 by the appellant-Institute on 9th February, 1999 to which respondent no.1 sent a reply on 15th February, 1999. The Enquiry Committee considered all the aspects of the matter and submitted a report dated 24th February, 1999 recommending appropriate disciplinary action against respondent No.1.

14. Thereafter, on 6th July, 1999 the appellant-Institute, after considering the reply filed by respondent No.1 issued an order rectifying the pay scale of respondent No.1. Accordingly, the pay scale of Rs.3000- 4500 mentioned in the appointment letter dated 16th February, 1995 was deleted and same was substituted with pay scale of Rs.2375-4450 and the salary was refixed as per the said pay scale.

15. Aggrieved by the order dated 6th July, 1999, passed by the appellant- Institute, respondent No.1 filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid order and claiming the pay scale which he was drawing under the appointment order. The Board of Governors in its 128th meeting dated 30th September, 1999/13th October, 1999 rejected the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and upheld the pay scale rectification order dated 6th July, 1999.

18. Learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment and order dated 30th May, 2006 dismissed the writ petition.

19. Against the order of dismissal respondent no.1 preferred Writ Appeal No.1030 of 2006, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 8th November, 2011.

24. We do not intend to go into the question whether respondent no.1 manipulated and inserted the word promoted in the letter of appointment. Admittedly, the appointment order has been issued pursuant to the notification of direct recruitment, therefore, it should be treated as direct recruitment. Mistake if any committed by clerical staff or any other authority in mentioning the word ‘promoted and appointed’ in place of ‘appointed’ and showing higher scale of pay of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-4500,it is always open to the competent authority to correct the mistake.

27. In view of the aforesaid finding we hold that the appellant had committed no error in correcting the letter of appointment by replacing the correct scale of pay to which respondent no.1 was entitled i.e. Rs.2375-75- 2900-100-3700-125-4450 as provided in the advertisement/notification dated 29th July, 1994.

29. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 8th November, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.1030 of 2006. The appeal is allowed. No costs.