SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Sudhir Budakoti and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2661 of 2015
Decided On : 07-04-2022
State Universities Act - Registrar Appointment - Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 - The Uttarakhand State University (Centralized Services) Rules, 2006 - The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent seeking pay scale parity with Central Universities for the post of Registrar. The Appellant challenged the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Uttarakhand adopted the State Universities Act, 1973 and the 2006 Rules for the appointment of Registrars. Respondent No. 1, appointed as Registrar, sought pay scale parity with Central Universities. The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing a review of the pay scale.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Appellant did not adopt the circular of the Central Government for Registrars in State Universities. The High Court misconstrued the facts and failed to consider the distinct classification and financial implications. The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Respondent was entitled to pay scale parity with Central Universities for the post of Registrar, and whether the High Court decision was based on a correct understanding of the facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Appellant was not bound by the circular of the Central Government, and the High Court misconstrued the facts and failed to consider the distinct classification and financial implications. The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Final Decision: The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. Aggrieved over the judgment rendered by the High Court of Uttarakhand in allowing the Writ Petition (S/B) No. 51/2011 filed by the Respondents before us, the present appeal by special leave has been filed.
NECESSARY FACTS
2. The statute by the name “State Universities Act, 1973” enacted by the State of Uttar Pradesh was adopted by the State of Uttarakhand through a modification order of the year 2001.
3. Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) deals with the post of Registrar, who shall be a whole-time officer of the University. He shall not be offered nor be entitled to accept any remuneration for any other work in the University, save as provided under the governing rules. His appointment has to be in terms of Section 17 of the Act and the rule making power provided thereunder.
4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17(1) of the Act, the State of Uttarakhand brought into the statute book “The Uttarakhand State University (Centralized Services) Rules, 2006” (hereinafter referred to as “2006 Rules”) prescribing essential qualifications, procedure for recruitment and pay scale etc. for the post of Registrars in the State Universities. The 2006 Rules also provide the qualification for a Lecturer, which is obviously different to that of a Registrar. To be noted, the pay scale at the relevant point of time was 3200-100-3500-125-4875, with effect from 01.01.1986.
5. The State of Uttarakhand, on 16.06.2008, sent a requisition to the State Public Service Commission for the appointment of Registrars in the State Universities, clearly indicating the essential qualifications along with the pay scale, as aforesaid. On 31.12.2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi published two separate communications addressed to the Secretary, University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the UGC”) on the revision of the pay scale of the Lecturers on one side and the Administrative Staff starting from the Registrar on the other. Both these circulars issued separately were obviously meant to be implemented by the Central Government Universities and the Central Government Colleges duly funded by it. In other words, they became mere recommendations qua the State Government Universities. We may hasten to add the qualification prescribed for the post of Registrar by the UGC being higher, stands different to that of the Uttarakhand State Universities as mandated under the 2006 Rules.
6. The State of Uttarakhand thought it fit to accept the recommended revised pay scale of the Government of India dated 31.12.2008, meant to be applied for the Central Universities and Central Government Colleges, to its teaching faculties alone, except sub-clause (f) in clause 8, which speaks of age of superannuation, an issue with which we are not concerned in the present lis.
7. Respondent No. 1 was selected and given the appointment to the post of Registrar on 23.11.2009 with the appropriate pay scale in terms of the 2006 Rules, which was also notified in the advertisement itself.
8. After taking charge as an Assistant Registrar in Kumaon University, Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 51/2011 before the High Court of Uttarakhand seeking the pay scale meant to be applied for his counterparts in the Central Universities. While entertaining the writ petition, the High Court in and by its order dated 11.03.2011 directed the Principal Secretary, Higher Education of the State of Uttarakhand to take a call on the letter dated 01.01.2010 sent by the Kumaon University, which order is appositely placed hereunder:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of pay scales is determined by the specific rules and eligibility criteria for different posts, and the doctrine of equal pa....
(1) It is mandatory for UGC to be guided by directions issued by Central Government on questions of policy relating to national purposes by discharging its functions under UGC Act, 1956.(2) A Judgmen....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the 2010 Regulations provide for the counting of previous regular service for the purposes of grant of benefits under CAS, without making a....
The exclusion of non-teaching staff from revised pay scales in unaided institutions is arbitrary, violating Article 14's guarantee of equality, as both aided and unaided staff should equally share in....
The court established that financial aid eligibility for lecturers in minority institutions is contingent upon the date of their appointment relative to the policy decision of 09.12.1982, which restr....
The fixed pay policy for Group-C and Group-D employees is constitutional, aimed at employment generation, and does not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work without proving equality in al....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.