PTA-appointed Assistant Professor from reserved category meeting relaxed 50% Master's marks and eligibility test criteria entitled to Grant-in-Aid salary from appointment date; denial despite parity with others held discriminatory and arbitrary under Articles 14, 16.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Sulesh Chand, had filed an Original Application No. 6575 of 2016 before the State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 823 of 2020 seeking the following reliefs:-

7(a) That the respondents be directed to continue with the services of the applicant as per the notifications vide Annexure A-4,A-5, and if after the filing of the present O.A the services of the applicant are terminated, he may kindly be ordered to be re-instated;
7(b). That the services of the applicant be regulated strictly in compliance of Annexures A-4 and A-5 and further in consonance with the Grant-in-Aid to PTA rules 2006 framed by the State Government and the Grant-in-Aid may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of the applicant as is being done in the newly appointed teachers vide Annexure A-7”.

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as set up is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Political Science under the respondents No. 3 and 4 through PTA under Pandit Sant Ram Government College, Baijnath against vacant post on 26.09.2014 at fixed salary of Rs.8,000/-per month, which was subsequently increased by the respondents. It is averred that petitioner is a Post Graduate in Political Science and has also passed State Level Eligibility test for Lectureship/ Assistant Professorship, as per Annexure A-2 colly. It is averred that though the petitioner had been working in the said College as Assistant Professor in Political Science on PTA against vacant post since September, 2014 but the Respondents have not extended the benefit of Grant-in Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner. It is averred that the State Government has taken a decision on 26.07.2014 Annexure A-4, reiterated on 06.08.2014 Annexure A-5, that teachers who were engaged in Colleges under PTAs and had qualified NET/ SLET, shall continue to serve as teachers.
In this backdrop, the grievance is that though the petitioner was eligible and was appointed through PTA against vacancy but the action of the Respondents in not releasing the Grant-in-aid has resulted in depriving the petitioner of the salary at higher rate which have been given to other similarly placed teachers in Colleges, is unfair, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 18.02.2017 of Director of Higher Education.
3(i). Reply-Affidavit States that the petitioner-applicant is not a Government Servant. It is averred that the petitioner was engaged as Lecturer as a Guest Faculty in September 2014 and he was given salary as fixed by Local PTA time to time. Reply-Affidavit does not dispute the continuity of the petitioner as on day also. Reply-Affidavit indicates that Grant-in-aid was not given as the petitioner possessed 52.5% marks at Master’s Level/Post Graduation vis-à-vis the requirement of 55% marks as prescribed in the Rules. In this backdrop, the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of the petition.

NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:
4. In rebuttal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Professor to assert that as per the Recruitment Rules, though requirement of 55% marks at Master’s Degree has been prescribed but at the same time, a relaxation of 5% is provided from 55% to 50% marks at Masters Level for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. In this backdrop, it is averred that once the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category as per Annexure PA-1, in terms of the certificate issued by Executive Magistrate, Baijnath on 08.07.2011, therefore, the petitioner having 52.5% marks at Master’s Level was fully eligible.

5. Heard, Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner, Ms. Seema Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, f