T. Gnanasambanthan vs Board of Governors

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(Mad) 226

High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
T. Gnanasambanthan
Versus
The Board of Governors rep. by its Chairman National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research (Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development) & Others
W.P. No. 18450 of 2010 & M.P. Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 in W.P. No. 26549 of 2013 & Cont. P. No. 1384 of 2012
Decided On: 31-01-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:L.Chandrakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A. Mohan, Advocate.

Headnote:   (a). Service Law - Writ petition was filed for challenging the rejection of request made by the Petitioner to reinstate him as Professor of Computer Centre instead of EDP Manager stating that the order had revised the pay band of Petitioner to ordinary grade pay instead of academic grade pay – it was directed to fix the pay and retrieve the excess amount already paid – this order was challenged and an interim stay on retrieval was given – consequently, the payment of salary was halted by the respondents against which a Contempt petition was filed and payment of salary was done – the question before this court was whether Petitioner was entitled to pay band at par with post of Professor even if he was not holding the alleged post – it was held that since selection of Petitioner was done for a post in Group A staff that had the same pay band in parity with the Professors and same retiring age – the posts he was considered for and the work extracted from him even after dismissal of petition was of academic nature identical to post of Professors – the directions for fixation and recovery of specified sum was done with mala fide intentions and stood unjustified – the writ petition was allowed.
       (b). Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226(3) – Second writ petition was filed against the memorandum given by 3rd Respondent/Director stating that the Petitioner shall be retired on superannuation on account that he was not holding a teaching post – further petitions were filed by respondents for vacation of interim relief to which the court said that the matter was to be referred before the Chief Justice – in the meantime, the stay was vacated as per Article 226(3) of Constitution as an obligation is imposed by the virtue of this provision upon High Courts to vacate interim stay within two weeks – it was a matter of fact that this neither amounts to commission or omission as everything was done on part of writ petitioner for disposal of application within two weeks – the High Court erred in complying by Constitutional mandate by not considering non-listing of application by Registry as an act of omission which would be detrimental to the party – it was held earlier in first writ petition that Petitioner was at par with academic post and so the retiring age was 65 years on account of which the interim order was denied in second petition rendering the directions in first petition indolent – the M.A. for vacation of stay was dismissed while other were allowed along with payment of costs to Petitioner against mala fide actions of 3rd Respondent.
       (c). Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 (3) – Upon proper interpretation of the said provision, the nature of the power in the provision is directory and not mandatory as no party should receive unfair advantage if Court fails to dispose the vacating application within two weeks – an interpretation that would give unfair benefit to a party would have detrimental effect and thus does not stand justified – the provision cannot be interpreted as mandatory if the obligation it imposes on one party has disastrous consequences for another on non-fulfilment of that obligation.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is a Graduate in Civil Engineering and was a rank holder in the University of Madras in B.E. Civil Engineering. He completed a Post Graduate Degree in Engineering with distinction from the Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore in 1977 and thereafter, obtained a Doctorate Degree from the Indian Institute of Technology at Madras in 1981. He holds a PG Diploma in Project Management from the Punjabi University at Patiala. He is a Member and Fellow of various Professional Bodies, such as Indian Society of Technical Education, Computer Society of India and the Institution of Engineers.

2. The petitioner started his career in a company at New Delhi in 1980. After a stint for five years in that company, the petitioner worked in Saudi Arabia for seven years. He was instrumental in improving major applications in software, using "C, X Windows, X Lib and Fortran 77 on Unix Platform and AED Graphics Workstation.

3. For a brief period, the petitioner worked as a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering in Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of Engineering at Krishnankoil (Srivilliputhur) and as a Senior Scientific Officer in Tamil Nadu State Council for Science and Technology.

4. When the petitioner was working as Senior Scientific Officer in Tamil Nadu State Council for Science and Technology, he came across an advertisement bearing Advertisement No.1/94 issued by the Technical Teachers Training Institute, which was part of the Ministry of Human Resources Development of the Government of India. The advertisement invited applications in the prescribed form for various posts. All posts were actually classified into three different categories, namely (i) Professors, (ii) Assistant Professors, and (iii) Lecturers. Under the category of Professors, seven posts, all in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7300 were advertised. They were (i) Policy Planning, (ii) EDP Manager, (iii) Educational Management, (iv) Extension Centre, Kerala, (v) Extension Centre, Karnataka, (vi) Correspondence Course, and (vii) Civil Engineering.

5. The petitioner applied for the post of Professor (EDP Manager) in the scale of Rs.4500-7300. He was selected, after a process of selection by the Staff Selection Committee and by a memorandum dated 24.02.1995, the petitioner was appointed to the post of EDP Manager in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7300. The Memorandum contained an annexure, which listed out the terms and conditions of appointment. Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of appointment stipulated that the age of retirement on superannuation was 60 years. This was due to the fact that the age of retirement on superannuation of Professors was stipulated in the year 1995 uniformly at 60. The terms and conditions also stipulated that he was liable to be transferred to any one of the extension centres at Kerala, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Madurai and that the services would be governed by the Recruitment and Service Rules of the Institute as well as by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

6. Ever since the date of appointment, till the year 2000, there was no confusion about the category of post held by the petitioner and the terms and conditions of his service. But, as destiny induces many people to make suicidal moves in life at some point of time, the petitioner made a representation to the Board of Governors of the Technical Teachers Training Institute, in November 2000, requesting them to re-designate his post as "Professor of Computer Centre". The petitioner need not have made such a request at all, as he was not only paid salary in the category of Professor, but was also granted the benefit of availing vacations every year. He was treated on par with other Professors and there was no occasion for him to make a request for re-designation.

7. In a meeting held on 25.11.2000, the Board of Governors of the Institute rejected the request of the petitioner, along with the reques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document