2001 Supreme(AP) 1407
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.A.SWAMY
T.M.Bhrambika - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-13-01
Headnote:
Employment and service - Government of India enacted Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Section 5 - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961- Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, 1933 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 42 and 43 - Regularizing services as Lecturer - working on temporary basis - Writ petition is whether Commissioner of Collegiate Education is justified in excluding maternity leave special leave availed by petitioner for undergoing tubectomy operation and days on which she was on invigilation work apart from availing of casual leaves and public holidays availed for regularising her services as Lecturer - For various reasons government was not giving permission to private institutions in State of Andhra Pradesh for appointing required staff on regular basis - Therefore those institutions were forced to resort to ad hoc appointments as per directions given by Government from time to time - While some of teaching staff in some of managements are paid on hourly basis others are paid consolidated monthly remuneration - In this case petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Telugu on in a clear aided vacancy and she was being paid a consolidated remuneration of per month – Held, It is not in dispute that every teacher/lecturer whether or working in Government or unaided or aided school/college is bound to go for invigilation work as per orders issued by University to which institution is affiliated - Admittedly petitioner attended days of invigilation works between March - It is known thing that during public examinations academic activity in colleges will be suspended and all teachers have to assist Superintendent in-Charge of examination in conducting public examination peacefully and in an order manner - In management paid salaries for the period for which the petitioner was no invigilation duty - Hence official respondents gravely erred in not counting days petitioner spent on invigilation work towards man days - They also erred in not counting days for which college could not work at time of demolition and communal riots respectively - Writ petition allowed
( 1 ) THE issue that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Commissioner of Collegiate Education is justified in excluding the maternity leave, special leave availed by the petitioner for undergoing tubectomy operation and the days on which she was on invigilation work apart from availing of casual leaves and public holidays availed by the petitioner herein to consider her case for regularising her services as Lecturer in Telugu in the 3rd respondent college as per G. O. Ms. No. 328 Education (CE-III) Department, dated 15. 10. 1997.
( 2 ) THE facts which are not in dispute are as follows:
( 3 ) FOR various reasons the government was not giving permission to the private institutions in the State of A. P. for appointing the required staff on regular basis. Therefore those institutions were forced to resort to ad hoc appointments as per the directions given by the Government from time to time. While some of the teaching staff in some of the managements are paid on hourly basis the others are paid consolidated monthly remuneration. In this case the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Telugu on 8. 8. 1989 in a clear aided vacancy and she was being paid a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1440/- per month.
( 4 ) AS several lecturers had been working on temporary basis for a number of years, there was a demand by the teacher orgainsations for regularisation of their services. Acceding to the request of the organisations, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 328 Education (Education-Ill) department dated 15. 10. 1997 wherein certain guidelines were laid down for regularisation of the services of part time lecturers working in private aided colleges in the State. According to the respondents, the writ petitioner fulfilled all conditions except the one stipulated in Clause No. 5 of para 9 of the said G. O. , according to which one has to put in a service of three academic years (i. e.) 360 working days, since the working days per year being 120, as on 30. 7. 1991 or five academic years (i. e.) 600 working days as on 25. 11. 1993. For better understanding Clause 5 is extracted hereunder:"5. only those who have put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30. 7. 1991 or 5 academic years as on 25. 11. 1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularisation. As 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic year, the PTL/ptjls should have put in 360 working days as on 30. 7. 1991 and 600 working days as on 25. 11. 1993. The service put up by the PTL/ptjl in more than one private aided college with or without breaks may be taken into account. Counting of service shall be based on the certificate issued by the concerned RJD (HE) and countersigned by the Commissioner of collegiate Education/commissioner and director of Intermediate Education as the case may be. Such certificate shall be issued by the RJD (HE) based on the certificates issued by the correspondent of the respective college and countersigned by the principal of the private college along with audit for the concerned period. "
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the official respondents, the petitioner worked for only 569 days. The Commissioner arrived at this figure after excluding the following days/period: (1) 67 days availed by the petitioner as maternity leave; (2) 14 days leave from 13. 10. 1993 to 26. 10. 1993 availed by her as Special leave for undergoing family planning operation; (3) 55 days of invigilation duty she attended for Government examinations; (4) Curfew days (10) from 7. 12. 1992 to 16. 12. 1990 at the time of communal riots; (5) 6 days (i. e.) from 7. 12. 1992 to 12. 12. 1992 at the time of demolition of Babri Masjid; and (6) 37 days of Casual Leaves and public holidays availed by her during the service put in by her.
( 6 ) HERE we should keep in mind that the 3rd respondent management sent proposals for regularisation of the petitioner s s