JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing today.

3. In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers of the petitioners to grant them the benefit of selection grade of Rs.12,000-18,300/-. Also under the challenge in these petitions are communication dated 1.6.2015 by which the case of the petitioners for the grant of selection grade as prayed for was rejected on the ground that the petitioners have undergone after 5.3.2010.

4. For the purposes of this judgment, facts of Special Civil Application No.13823 of 2019 are considered.

4.1. The petitioner obtained a degree in Bachelor (Electrical Engineering). She obtained Master Degree in the year 2015. Vide order dated 21.1.1994, she was appointed as lecturer, Electrical Engineering, Class-II on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.2,200-4,000/- After due selection process undertaken through the Gujarat Public Service Commission for direct recruitment, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Electrical Engineering) in A. V. Parekh Technical Institute, Rajkot vide order dated 29.6.1995. She completed her probation and by an order dated 31.1.1998, she was continued on long term basis. The pay scale of Rs.2,200-4000/- was revised to Rs.8,000-13,500/- with effect from 1.1.1996. Pursuant to a Resolution of All India Council for Technical Education for short `AICTE') of 30.12.1999, revision of pay was adopted by the State vide Resolution dated 20.6.2001. For being entitled to the senior scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- in accordance with the norms of AICTE which was followed by the State, on completion of six years of service and on participation in induction training, the petitioners were granted the benefit of senior scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- with effect from 21.9.2001.

4.2. The case of the petitioners is that on completion of five years experience in the lecturer (senior scale) on the consistent satisfactory performance, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of lecturer (selection grade) of Rs.12,000- 18,300/-.

5. Ms. Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to the AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999. She would submit that for the purposes of earning senior scale, training was necessary which the petitioners had undertaken. For the purposes of selection grade, what was necessary, was completion of five years of service in the lecturer (senior scale) and consistent satisfactory performance. No training was necessary.

5.1. That, according to her was also the yardstick by virtue of the Resolution of the State dated 20.6.2001. The selection committee after due consideration refused to extend the benefit of selection grade in the case of petitioners for the reasons as stated hereinabove, inasmuch as, stating that the petitioners had not undertaking training on 5.3.2010.

5.2. Ms. Panchal would submit that reading the notification of AICTE of 30.12.1999 together with the pari-materia of Notification of 20.6.2001 of the State, it was not necessary to undertake training for the purposes of earning selection grade. The communication dated 30.1.2001 annexed to the reply was that of the Director of Technical Education, who could not travel beyond the norms set up by the AICTE with the State was bound and did follow as is evident from the Resolution dated 20.6.2001. Therefore, in her submission, the reliance is placed on Clause 5 requiring the petitioners to undergo to refresher course was beyond the provisions of the norms stipulated by the AICTE.

6. Even otherwise, in the case of Mamta Champaklal Shah v. State of Gujarat, the selection grade given to her with effect from 11.7.2005, was subsequently withdrawn. That was a subject matter of challenge before this Court in SCA No.9712 o