Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(HP) 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADES, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Anil Verma and others – Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Rajinder Singh and others – Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Ritika Sharma and others – Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Jitender Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Ankaj Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Renu Patial and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWP No. 2978/2012 along with 9622/2012, 9937/2012, 2766/2013, 7451/2013 and 7850/2013
Decided On: 5.3.2014

Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner (s):Mr. M.L. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s. Bhuvnesh, Onkar Jairath, Man Singh and Rahul Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioners, in the respective writ petitions.
For the respondent(s):Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Ms. Meenakshi Sharma & Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Kush Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for the respondent-Service Commission.

The principle of equal pay for equal work is deducible from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.

Headnote:
The High Court held that the petitioners, who were appointed as lecturers on an hourly/lecture basis in government polytechnic colleges, were entitled to be treated as contract lecturers and were entitled to the same salary and benefits as contract lecturers. The Court found that the petitioners had been recruited in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, possessed the minimum educational qualification and other conditions as per the Rules, and were discharging the same and similar duties as regular/contract teachers. The Court also found that the State Government had discriminated against the petitioners by not conferring the status of contractual appointments on them, while similarly situated persons who were initially appointed on a lecture basis had been appointed on a contract basis. The Court held that the State Government's action was arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and that the petitioners were entitled to the same monetary benefits as the contractual lecturers appointed on a contract basis.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were appointed as lecturers on an hourly/lecture basis in government polytechnic colleges. They sought to be treated as contract lecturers and to be paid the same salary and benefits as contract lecturers. The State Government resisted the petitioners' claims, arguing that there was no master and servant relationship between the State Government and the petitioners, and that the arrangement was only a stop-gap arrangement to overcome the shortage of teaching staff.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the petitioners had been recruited in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, possessed the minimum educational qualification and other conditions as per the Rules, and were discharging the same and similar duties as regular/contract teachers. The Court also found that the State Government had discriminated against the petitioners by not conferring the status of contractual appointments on them, while similarly situated persons who were initially appointed on a lecture basis had been appointed on a contract basis. The Court held that the State Government's action was arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and that the petitioners were entitled to the same monetary benefits as the contractual lecturers appointed on a contract basis.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to be treated as contract lecturers? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the same salary and benefits as contract lecturers?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be treated as contract lecturers and were entitled to the same salary and benefits as contract lecturers. The Court found that the petitioners had been recruited in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, possessed the minimum educational qualification and other conditions as per the Rules, and were discharging the same and similar duties as regular/contract teachers. The Court also found that the State Government had discriminated against the petitioners by not conferring the status of contractual appointments on them, while similarly situated persons who were initially appointed on a lecture basis had been appointed on a contract basis. The Court held that the State Government's action was arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and that the petitioners were entitled to the same monetary benefits as the contractual lecturers appointed on a contract basis.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petitions and declared that the petitioners were deemed to have been appointed as Lecturers on contract basis with all consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment. The Court also directed the State Government to regularize the services of petitioners who had completed six years of uninterrupted service.

JUDGMENT

Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge:

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. All India Council for Technical Education has prescribed norms for Polytechnic Institutions. According to these norms, staff structure of an institution will depend on factors which primarily include curriculum structure, work schedules (weekly semester and annually), student intake, disciplines offered, instructional methods and, media employed, student contact hours, group and class sizes and co-curricular and extra-curricular activities requiring staff time involvement and training, and development of staff themselves. The additional teaching and technical staff for new courses is to be provided as per following norms:-

Weekly Work Schedule

Teachers of polytechnics have to perform a variety of tasks which include formal instruction in class rooms, tutorial classes,

Total Institutions hours per week. 40 hrs.

Student contact hours to formal training 33-36 hrs.

Student centered activities (Library 08-10 hrs.

studies, guidance and counseling, seminars etc.)

Group and Class Size Student : Teacher

Theory lecture class 40 to 60 : 1

Tutorials 20 : 1

Lab. Practical/Workshop/ 20 : 1

Drawing

Project work 05 : 1

laboratories and workshops, preparation of instruction, assessment and evaluation of student work, counseling and guidance of students and other developmental activities. Each institution has to deploy personnel and allocate work, considering accomplishment of institutional goals and objectives and meeting as far as possible individual competence, preferences and interest. The breakdown of workloads to be treated as a guideline with scope of flexibility is as under:-

The student-staff ratio will depend on (i) teacher time required for formal instruction requiring student contact (ii) student time devoted to formal learning requiring teacher contact and (iii) class sizes for different forms of instruction. The student staff ratio is to be worked out for specific curricula. The teaching load may be such that it should not be allowed to rise beyond 16:1. However, desirable ratio is 11:1. The staff pattern is - Principal and Teaching staff, workshop staff, teaching and supporting staff, library, instructional resource production centre and computer staff.

Sr.No. Activity Hours per week

Principal HOD Lecturer & Sr. Lecturer

1. Contact Hours (Instruc.) 04 12 16-20

2 Preparation, Assessment, Evaluation. 03 06 12

3. Administration, Research Guidance & CounselingDevelopment Activities etc. 29-33 18-22 08

36-40 36-40 36-40

3 In exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the respondent-State has framed the Rules called the Himachal Pradesh Technical Education Department Class III Service Rules, 1973. These Rules were duly notified on 11th October 1973. Rule 2 is dictionary clause. As per Rule 2(e) “direct recruitment” means recruitment made other-wise than by promotion. The educational and professional qualifications of candidates are prescribed under Rule 6. The method of recruitment is provided under Rule 7. The posts of Lecturers and Junior Lecturers in (Maths/English/Physics/Chemistry) are selection post.

The essential qualification is second Class Master’s Degree in the subject concerned of a recognized University. The post is to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. The departmental promotion committee is to be presided over by the Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or a member thereof to be nominated by him. The respondent-State has framed the Rules called the Himachal Pradesh Technical Educational, Vocational and Industrial Training Department, Lecturer Engineering (Polytechnic), Class-I (Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2011. These Rules were notified on 25.10.2011. The cadre strength of the post was is 112. The minimum qualification f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document