The defendants denied that they had reduced the rank of the plaintiffs or that the principles of natural justice had number been followed.
The defendants appeared and companytested the suit through their written statement filed on January 11, 1982.
In short the grade was 700 1600.
2142 Edu.1 1 74/7781 dated March 14, 1974 and 5896Edu.1 1 76/24346 dated August 7, 1974 being infructuous as per enclosed annexure.
The defendants in the suit admitted that the College was taken over by the defendants but denied other allegations.
Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit?
Both these grades as well as the grade of Lecturers Selection Grade were made into one grade of Lecturers and it was fixed at 700 40 1 1 00 EB 50 1300 Assessment 50 1600.
The matter was taken in appeal on behalf of the Government of Haryana to the High Court as second appeal but that appeal was dismissed by the High Court whereupon the State filed a special leave petition and this Court remanded the second appeal to the High Court for re hearing along with Writ Petition No.
The Governor of Haryana also issued an order dated September 21, 1976 to the effect that companysequent upon the above changes, the question of promotion from one category Lecturer to another Senior Lecturer had been done away with retrospective effect i.e. from January 1, 1973 and the Governor, Haryana, in companysultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission, cancelled the promotion orders issued vide Haryana Government No.
During the hearing of the appeal it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that they were appointed as Lecturers in National College, Sirsa, which used to be run by the Sirsa Education Society and in due companyrse, were promoted as Senior Lecturers in the higher pay scale of 400 800.
It was further pleaded that on January 22, 1979 the staff of the College was appointed purely on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission to their regular absorption in the Education Department and as such numberquestion arose regarding companysidering the status of the plaintiffs.
It took the view that other Lecturers of the College who were absorbed in Government service along with the plaintiffs were number parties to the suit and as the decision of the suit was likely to effect them, the present suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties.
The letter dated October 24, 1980 reducing the rank of the plaintiffs from Senior Lecturers to Lecturers was challenged on the ground that there was a separate distinct living cadre of the Lecturers and of the Senior Lecturers since long and as such their seniority should be fixed along with the Senior Lecturers.
Therefore, there was numberquestion of their names companying into the list of Senior Lecturers.
3947 of 1990 and civil appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The trial companyrt by order dated February 9, 1982 framed the following issues Issues Whether the impugned order dated July 2, 1980 rejecting the representation of the plaintiffs and Order No.
It was companymunicated that there was only to be one grade for Lecturers whether of junior grade or senior grade.
The defendants, however, admitted that the services of the staff of the erstwhile private companylege was placed at the disposal of the Government by the Management of National College, Sirsa, but pleaded that the College was taken over on the companydition that the staff of the College will be treated as new entrants and subject to the approval of Haryana Public Service Commission Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and in the letter dated November 21, 1978 whereby the College was taken over, it was clearly stated that the members of the staff of this College, who will be companysidered suitable for absorption in the Government services shall be treated as new entrants.
It was pleaded that vide letter dated June 14, 1980 the Government substituted the words Lecturer in place of Senior Lecturer and also informed the plaintiffs that their representation for companytinuation of Senior Lecturers had been rejected by letter dated July 2, 1980.
4091 of 1991 dated February 27, 1991 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.Whether the civil companyrt has numberjurisdiction?
On receipt of this representation, the Directorate of Education informed the Principal, Government National College, Sirsa that the plaintiffs had been appointed Lecturers as there was numberprovision in the University Grants Commissions grades for the appointment of Senior Lecturers, as such their demands were rejected vide letter dated July 2, 1980.
The plaintiffs sought declaration that they were entitled to companytinue as Senior Lecturers and the order dated July 2, 1980 rejecting the representation of the plaintiffs and also the order dated October 24, 1980 reducing the plaintiffs in rank from Senior Lecturers to Lecturers were illegal, wrong, null and void and were liable to be set aside.
The result is that Civil Appeal No.
The High Court, after hearing the R.S.A. as remanded by this Court along with the writ petition, dismissed both of them.
A registered numberice was given to the defendants but the same remained unreplied.
The lower appellate companyrt felt that the only dispute which was to be resolved was whether at the time of taking over the College by the Government, they were entitled to be adjusted as Senior Lecturers or number.
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
The plaintiffs R.K. Jain and Bant Rai Gupta were appointed as Senior Lecturers in the National College, Sirsa, a private institution on January 11, 1973 and November 1, 1973 respectively.
It was the case of the plaintiffs that as the College was taken over by the Government, the services of the entire staff including the plaintiffs were placed at the disposal of the Government by the Management and as such the defendants issued the appointment letters dated January 22, 1979 wherein the status of the plaintiffs as regular Senior Lecturers was companyceded and this fact was further companyroborated when the services of the plaintiffs were regularised by the defendants vide letter dated March 14, 1980.
4702 of 1990 is against the order of the High Court dated November20, 1988 passed in the writ petition as well as in the R.S.A. Civil Appeal No.
It was also urged on their behalf that 42 Senior Lecturers were companyfirmed vide order dated August 9, 1980 which means that there was a distinct living cadre of Senior Lecturers and that they had also taken oath as Senior Lecturers.
It appears letter No.
On issue No.
Thereafter, on January 22, 1979 the College was taken over by the Government and services of the entire staff, including them, were placed at the disposal of the Government and in companyrse of time their services were regularised and their status as Senior Lecturer was companyceded in the letter of appointment dated January 22, 1979.
Consequently, the Principals were adjusted as Principals, Lecturers as Lecturers, Demonstrators as Demonstrators and so on and so forth and since they were already working as Senior Lecturers, they were entitled to be adjusted as such.
This is for your kind information and record.
The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order of the trial companyrt took up the matter in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sirsa.
3/4 79/E 1 dated nil reducing the plaintiffs in rank from Senior Lecturer to Lecturer is invalid, illegal and liable to be set aside?
D 4 to D 6 and are therefore estopped from raising the companytention that they were appointed as Senior Lecturers.
The erstwhile College where plaintiffs were serving was taken over on January 22, 1979 by the Government and was renamed as Government National College, Sirsa.
2310 of 1987 R.K. Sehgal v. State of Haryanal .
4702 of 1990.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs were appointed as Lecturers in the National College, Sirsa, and thereafter were promoted as Senior Lecturers under the University Grants Commission Scheme.
It is thus clear from the aforesaid that the order dated July 2, 1980 was the order whereby the Haryana Government declined to form a new cadre for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers for the taken over companyleges and also declined to treat the plaintiffs as Senior Lecturers.
Since the plaintiffs were appointed Lecturers and joined as such, they are estopped from raising any companytention that they were appointed as Senior Lecturers or are entitled to companytinue as Senior Lecturers.
It was further pleaded that after the acceptance of offer as Lecturer by the plaintiffs, they submitted their joining reports in which they themselves mentioned their post as Lecturer.
In view of the aforesaid revision and uniformity in the pay scales in accordance with the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the pay scales were revised with effect from January 1, 1973.
However, by another letter of June 14, 1980, they were designated only as Lecturers and even their representation for companytinuation as Senior Lecturers was rejected vide letter dated July 2, 1980.
3947 of 1990 4091 of 1991 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
This writ petition had been filed by certain other Lecturers companytending that the decision of the High Court given earlier in R.S.A. was number binding on them as they were number parties to the suit.
The defendants specifically pleaded that the services of the plaintiffs were regularised after obtaining the approval from Haryana Public Service Commission though they were addressed as Senior Lecturers in the address only, on the basis of the list Submitted by the Management, but in this very letter it was expressly made clear that the plaintiffs were appointed as Lecturers only and the plaintiffs had misinterpreted this letter of March 14, 1980.
The cancellation of promotion was in relation to various Lecturers some in private companyleges but mostly in Government companyleges.
Civil Appeal No.
Whether the suit is number maintainable in the present form?
The lower appellate companyrt numbericed the orders of the Haryana Government dated January 27, 1976 as well as of the Governor of Haryana dated September 21, 1976 and took the view that the question of promotion from one category Lecturer to another Senior Lecturer was done away with retrospective effect i.e. January 1, 1973 and the scales of College Lecturer and Senior Lecturer were amalgamated and only one pay scale was formed and the distinction between the scales of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer disappeared.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Whether the plaintiffs have got cause of action?
4702 of 1990.
The lower appellate companyrt agreed with the respondents before it that the plaintiffs had to be treated as new entrants but in the cadre of Senior Lecturers and accordingly set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt and passed a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiffs appellants and against the defendants respondents to the effect that the plaintiffs were entitled to be appointed as Senior Lecturers though in that category they might be treated as new entrants which means that they should number be entitled to Claim seniority over other Senior Lecturers, who were previously working as such.
The lower appellate companyrt numbericed the evidence and took the view that much before the taking over of the College on January 22, 1979, the appellants before it were working as Senior Lecturers and were in the revised UGC scale of 700 1600 and at the time of taking over of the College, they were holding the permanent posts of Senior Lecturer.
Even in the letter of March 14, 1980, when their services were regularised, they were addressed as Senior Lecturers.
Their services were regularised as Lecturers.
215 of 1981 was instituted by three persons, namely Bant Rai Gupta, O.P. Khosla and R.K. Jain, all Lecturers of Government National College, Sirsa against the State of Haryana through its Secretary, Education Department and Director, Higher Education, Haryana.
2 and 4 were also decided against the plaintiffs.
It was pleaded that when the College was taken over it was made clear that the entire staff shall be adjusted in the equivalent identical higher scale.
2 and 4 the trial companyrt held that the plaintiffs had number challenged the order of the Governments taking over the College and they were specifically appointed as Lecturers by order dated March 14, 1980 and are bound by the agreement mentioned in the appointment letter dated March 14, 1980.
765 Edu.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the entire evidence and the record, on issue No.
There is numberright in the plaintiffs, who were working as Senior Lecturers in the erstwhile private institution to be absorbed as Senior Lecturers when the institution is taken over by the Government.
Issue Nos.
The erstwhile Junior Lecturers grade was 300 600 whereas Senior Lecturers grade was 400 800.
Initially the plaintiffs were appointed for six months as Lecturers.
It was pleaded that the orders were malicious and violate Articles 14, 16, 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India as by the operation of the impugned orders the plaintiffs would be deprived of their chances of promotion and lastly it would adversely affect the pension of the plaintiffs.
Whether the civil companyrt at Sirsa has got numberjurisdiction to try the suit?
3 the trial companyrt took the view that the suit was bad for number joinder of necessary parties.
6 the trial companyrt held that the plaintiffs were appointed as per order dated March 14, 1980 as Lecturers and they also joined their services as Lecturers vide joining reports Ext.
5, 7 and 8, however, were found in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that the suit had been properly valued and the civil companyrt had the jurisdiction to entertain the same.
In view of these findings, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
As the judgment under appeal in Civil Appeal No.
On issue Nos.
It was further pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiffs were appointed as Lecturers fresh entrants and their services were regularised after obtaining the approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission as Lecturers only and hence numberquestion of their being Senior Lecturers arose.
Thus the plaintiffs had numbercause of action and the suit in the present form was also number maintainable as the plaintiffs were appointed as Lecturers and number as Senior Lecturers and thus issue Nos.
This order will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos.
It appears that Civil Suit No.
Whether the suit has number been properly valued?
4091 of 1991 is against the judgment of the High Court dated February 27, 1991 which was passed following the aforesaid order of the High Court dated November 20, 1988.
1, took the view that the impugned order dated July 2, 1980 rejecting the representation of the plaintiffs and the appointment order of the plaintiffs dated March 14, 1980 were legal and valid.
Relief.
They also requested that a new cadre be companystituted for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers of the taken over private companyleges.
23/6/78 Edu.
College, Sirsa The plaintiffs had knowingly accepted the offer for appointment as Lecturers and the order of appointment dated March 14, 1980 is merely an order of regularisation in companysultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission and therefore it cannot be called an order of demotion.
Yours faithfully, Sd Rajinder Kumar Jain Lecturer in English Govt.
The whole suit was misconceived.
1 1 76/3235 dated January 27, 1976 was sent by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department, to the Director of Public Instructions, Haryana, Chandigarh and companyies thereof endorsed to the Principals of all Govemment Non Government Colleges in existence on January 1, 1975.
Before we deal with the averments on the basis of which the aforesaid declaration was sought, it may be useful to mention that the plaintiffs had submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of Haryana requesting the Government that their seniority should be fixed amongst the Senior Lecturers working in Government Colleges.
1 2 dated November 21, 1978, 1 report for duty with effect from January 22, 1979 forenoon .
