Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8


Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009

Madras High Court

Madras High Court
S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009



W.P.No.10049 of 2004

S.Palanivel ... Petitioner


1.The Principal

Pondicherry Engineering College,

Pondicherry-605 014.

2.The All India Council for Technical

Education rep. by its Member Secretary,

Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P.Estate,

New Delhi-110 002. ... Respondents

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order No.PEC/Estt./E11/Per/2004/No.1389 dated 23.3.2004
passed by the first respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and
consequently direct the Ist respondent to grant the benefit of career advancement to the petitioner by counting
his past equal/equivalent benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits and award costs.

For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Perumal

For Respondents ... Mrs.N.Mala

Government Advocate (P) for R1


Standing counsel for R2


The writ petitioner is before this court challenging the order passed by the first respondent regarding counting
of petitioner's past service in equal/equivalent posts for the purpose of career advancement scheme which is
kept in abeyance for want of approval from Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) and that his
past services rendered in the post equivalent would be considered for reception of approval from the Ministry.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 1

S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a post graduate in Structural Engineering and he joined in the first
respondent engineering college as a lecturer on 26.11.1999 in civil engineering department and continue to
work their. Previously he was working as a lecturer in the Regional Engineering College, Warangal from
5.8.2003 to 18.3.1997 and as Scientist Grade-IV (1) at the Structural Engineering Research Centre CSIR,
Chennai from 19.3.97 to 25.11.1999 and put more than six years of service in a grade which is
equal/equivalent to the grade of Lecturer in the first respondent college. It is the further contention of the
petitioner under the guidelines issued by the the second respondent, minimum length of service for eligibility
to move into the grade of lecturer (Senior scale) is four years for those with Ph.D and five years for those with
M.Phil/M.E./M.Tec. and to get benefits under the carrier advancement scheme. The second respondent issued
guidelines to count past service of the candidate rendered in a equivalent post out side the institution in respect
of Diploma Level Technical Institution. It is stated in regulation 2.00 of "Carrier Advancement Scheme
in the University Grants Commission" (minimum qualifications required for appointment of teachers in
Universities, colleges and other Institutions affiliated to it). The counting of past service has been stated in
regulation 8.0.0 of "U.G.C. notification on revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for
appointment of teachers in Universities & colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards
1998", which is extracted as follows: "Previous service, without any break as a Lecturer or
equivalent, in a university, college, national laboratory, or to her scientific organisations, i.e. CSIR, ICAR,
DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR and as a UGC Research Scientist, should be counted for placement of lecturer in
Senior Scale/Selection Grade provided that: 8.1.0 The post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post
of lecturer,

8.2.0 The qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post
of lecturer,

8.3.0 The candidates who apply for direct recruitment should apply through proper channels;

8.4.0 The concerned Lecturers possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment
as Lecturers,

8.5.0 The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the
University/State Government/Central/Institution's regulations; 8.6.0 The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a
leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted
provided-- (a) the ad hoc service was of more than one year duration;

(b) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection committed; and

(c) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc service, without any break.

3. The petitioner contends that he is eligible for carrier advancement Scheme and his past services rendered as
a lecturer in Warangal Regional Engineering College and as a scientist in Structural Research Centre (CSIR)
totally about six years, have to be taken as past services which are equivalent to the post of lecturer. The
petitioner represented to the first respondent to count his past services and the same was not considered.
Hence the petitioner was compelled to obtain an order from this court on 19.12.2002 in W.P.No.45552 of
2002 directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation. By an order dated 5.2.2003 the
petitioner was informed by the first respondent that there was no provision to count his past service and grant
him senior scale under the Carrier Advancement Scheme for the faculty of the first respondent, which has
been framed under the guidelines of UGC and that the petitioner's services from 1999 alone would be
considered for "Carrier Advancement Scheme".

4. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.28963 of 2003 filed by the petitioner, the second respondent issued
the communications dated 19.11.2003 and 11.2.2004 stating that the second respondent decided to adopt the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 2
S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009

guidelines framed by UGC in Clause 8.0.0 for counting past services of teachers of Degree Level Technical
Institution. On receipt of the said communications from the second respondent, the petitioner represented to
the first respondent on 3.12.2003 requesting it to count petitioner's past services as per AICTE guidelines and
the first respondent issued a reply dated 7.1.2004 reiterating the original stand that service rendered in
pondicherry college above is considered for placing lecturers in senior scale/selection grade under
advancement scheme and the petitioner's representation would be considered by placing the same before the
General Body. Though the petitioner got admission for Ph.D. under the Quality Improvement Programme by
the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and was selected for the Quality Improvement Programme (QIP)
in the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, he was not permitted to go on study. AICTE by letter dated
11.2.2004 informed the petitioner that it adopted the guide lines framed by UGC (Clause 8.0.0) for counting
of past service to teachers of Degreee level Technical Institution.

5. When things stand so, the first respondent issued the impugned order dated 24.3.2004 stating that the
counting of past service for other equivalent post is still continued to be kept in abeyance for want of approval
from the Ministry of Human Resource Developments. Aggrieved by that the petitioner has come before this
court by way of filing this writ petition.

6. The first respondent college filed counter statement stating that the college is run by a Society registered
under the Societies Registration Act and sponsored by Government of Union Territory Pondicherry and stated
that the first respondent college is governed by an administrative body of the college, which has framed its
own regulations relating to the conditions of service of the employees viz. both the members of teaching
faculties as well as administrative staff. Regarding the claim of the petitioner placement to senior scale and
selection grade scale, it is stated that the college is bound to take only the service of the employee in the first
respondent, and that first respondent was not intimated about the adoption of UGC guidelines issued by
AICTE for counting of past service in other institutions. It is further stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit
that even if the said communication is received from AICTE, it is not binding on the college and it cannot
accept any recommendations of AICTE, unless it is approved by the Governing Body.

7. In para 8 of the counter affidavit it is categorically stated that UGC itself pointed out that even in para 8.0.0
it is stated it is the guideline and not a direction which is mandatory. In para 17 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that ACTE guidelines are not mandatory in respect of service conditions of the first respondent
institution and AICTE has no jurisdiction to the service matters of the employees of technical institution as
could be seen in Section 10(1) of the AICTE Act 1987. With regard to the service matter of the employees of
the college including the teachers the decision of the Governing Body will be binding on the college and not
the guidelines of the AICTE or UGC.

8. Mr.V.Perumal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
qualified for considering his past experience as lecturer as per regulation 8.0.0 of UGC notification on
Revision of Pay Scale. His past service is proved by service certificate dated 15.4.1997 issued by the Regional
Engineer College, Warangal as lecturer in Civil Engineering Department for the period from 5.8.1993 to
18.3.1997 and by the certificate dated 23.3.2000 issued by the Structural Engineering Research Centre (CSIR)
as Scientist Grade IV (1) from 19.3.1997 to 25.11.1999 and if the first respondent has considered the past
service of the petitioner as per the UGC notification referred to above, he is entitled to be considered for
Carrier Advancement Scheme as per regulation 2.0.0 of University Grants Commission Regulation 2000 and
he is eligible for accelerated promotion by virtue of seniority to the post of lecturer (senior scale) and
thereafter by virtue of seniority he can be promoted as lecturer (Selection grade). He further submitted that the
petitioner is eligible to be appointed as lecturer pursuant to decision to implement the recommendations of VI
Pay Commission.

9. Mr.Perumal, further submitted that the Universities and colleges in the country are governed by UGC Act
and without recognition from the UGC, no university can confer any degree to students. Moreover learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent institution is a Technical Higher Education
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 3
S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009

Institution and is governed by All Indian Council for Technical Education, which has been formed pursuant to
enactment of AICTE 1987 Act. The council is entrusted to form programmes for co-ordinated development of
technical education in the country. When the parliament passed UGC and AICET Acts, the first respondent
has no exception under the Act and the same is bound by the Acts and it cannot be exempted from the Act.

10. Apart from that petitioner's counsel submitted that by an order dated 26.11.2006, the Ministry of Human
Resources Development Department informed that guidelines of UGC were approved by the Ministry of
Human Resources Development to count past service for the purpose of promotion under the Carrier
Advancement Scheme (CAS) of UGC in the cadre of Lecturer i.e. from the Lecturer to Senior Grade
Lecturer/Selection Grade Lecturer. When the Ministry of Human Resources Development already approved
the UGC guidelines, the reasons cited by the first respondent institution are of no avail. In that event, the
petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. He further submitted that this is a classic case of discrimination
by the first respondent by which the petitioner alone was isolated, whereas the other lecturers similarly placed
like petitioner, whose past services were taken into consideration by the first respondent institution. The
following persons' past services rendered in other institutions were taken into consideration for Senior Scale.
The said information was obtained by the petitioner under right to information Act by communication dated



Name and address of the institution


Period from to




SRM College of Engg.,


Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 4

S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009


5.10.85 to




Associate Lecturer

6.8.84 to



C.I.T., Coimbatore

Associate Lecturer

20.9.82 to 17.7.86


D.B.Jain College, SRM Eng.College

Asst. Professor Lecturer


5.10.85- 31.3.87

The past services rendered in other institution was taken into consideration for granting of Senior Scale.

10. Petitioner's counsel relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to on the ground of
discrimination in the case of Food Corporation of India and others Ashis Kumar Ganguly and others reported
in 2009 (7) SCC 734 and in State of Haryana and others versus Gurcharan Singh and others reported in (2004)
12 SCC 540. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgement of the Division Bench of this
court in Secretary, Kamaraj College, Thoothukudi versus D.S.Arulmani, Reader and Head of Department of
Tamil, Kamaraj College, Thoothukudi and others reported in (2008) 2 MLJ 593. wherein UGC regulations
were challenged and this court held that the universities and colleges affiliated to the universities are bound to
follow UGC regulations; Learned single judge of this court in Jeevarathinam(Ms.) and others versus
Government of Tamilnadu represented by Secretary to Government, Law Department, Chennai and others
reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 1074 has held that when UGC regulations has been accepted by the government,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 5
S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009

there cannot be any direct recruitment for the post of lecturers (senior scale) and such status is given under
accelerated promotion after six years of service as lecturer. By relying upon the said judgement, learned
counsel pointed out that UGC regulation and guidelines for appointment in the first respondent institution
have already been approved by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, the petitioner is entitled to
have his past service to be counted for Carrier Advancement Scheme.

12. On the other hand Mrs.Mala, learned counsel for the first respondent reiterating the counter filed by the
first respondent submitted that governing body of the institution has to pass resolution with regard to adopting
guidelines for its employees. "AICTE notification on revision of pay scales and associated terms and
conditions of service of Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education personnel of Degree level Technical
Institutions" which states in clause 15.1 that the implementation of the revised scale of pay would be
subject to acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in the scheme as well as other terms and conditions
issued by the AICTE in this behalf. By relying upon the said terms, he submitted that AICTE itself has
accepted the importance of the decision to be taken by the institutions. When such is the position only after
getting approval from the general body, the instructions could be implemented by the first respondent.

13. Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Assistant Central Government Standing counsel submitted that the UGC
guidelines as well as AICTE guidelines are binding on all the universities and the institutions/colleges
affiliated to the universities. The aforesaid fact has been recognised by various judgements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as of this court. He further submitted the higher education comes within the purview of
the Central Government under Entry 66 of List I to the VII schedule of the Constitution of India. Even the
State Government has got no power to frame rules with regard to higher education. For Development of
Higher Education, the Central Government Council ACT was formed and therefore the institution has no
exception and is bound to follow the guidelines issued by the AICTE. This position has been recognised by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof.Yashpal and another P.Chattisgar versus State of Chhattisgarh and others
reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 and in Jaya Gokul Education Trust versus Commissioner & Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram and another reported in AIR 2000 SC 1614.

14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had worked as lecturer in Regional Engineering College Warangal
and as a scientist Grade IV at Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR, Chennai for more than six years.
When UGC and AiCTE regulations unequivocally stated that past services of the candidates have to be
considered for Career Advancement Scheme to move into cadre of Senior scale, the first respondent
institution is bound to follow the same. As rightly pointed out by Mr.V.Perumal, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Central Government Standing counsel, the first respondent
institution cannot insist the guidelines from the second respondent. The regulations are subordinate legislation
and they are to be treated as statute. When such is the position, the stand of the second respondent that
guidelines are to be approved by a resolution of first respondent's general body has no leg to stand and it has
to be negatived. If such a stand is to be approved, it would be ultravires of UGC Act and AICTE and it will
not be in the interest of development and acceleration of Career Advancement scheme for higher education in
this country. It is seen from petitioner's typed set of papers that Anna University, Chennai counted past service
of one Mr.R.Bhuvaneswaran for career advancement as early as on 10.8.1999. When that is the position, there
cannot be any prohibition for the first respondent to follow the same.

15. The courts have recognised the importance of All India Councils for higher education namely medical
council in the medical field and technical council for technical education. These councils are expert bodies
and they are alone competent to give guidelines in the respective fields. When such is the position, the stand
taken in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that AICTE regulations are not mandatory in respect
of service condition and that the State has no jurisdiction on service matters are all without any substance and
such contention should not be allowed to be raised by the institution, which will go against the intention of the
legislature/parliament and it has to be discourage and condemned.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 6

S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009

16. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Perumal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent institute
itself has taken into consideration the past services of Dr.Nagarajan, Mr.S.Gothandaraman and
Dr.Paramanandan for senior scale. Subsequently in 57th governing body of the Engineering college
(Pondicherry) Society held on 16.2.2006 adopted the revised Career Advancement Scheme issued by the
AICTE by the first respondent college. In view of the above subsequent development also, the petitioner has
to succeed in the writ petition. Even otherwise, by G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 22.9.2009, the government of
Pondicherry implemented VI Pay Commission recommendation and thereby the petitioner is eligible to be
appointed as lecturer. There is no reason available for the first respondent to deny the said right to the
petitioner, which only go to show that the petitioner alone was subject to discriminatory treatment for no fault
on his part. Violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in (2009)
7 SCC 734 and 2004 (12) SCC 540 there cannot be discrimination between similarly situated. Therefore the
petitioner should be extended the same benefit given to the aforesaid similarly placed persons.

17. For the reasons stated above, this court includes that non-consideration of petitioner for movement to the
higher scale is arbitrary and the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and the
first respondent is directed to grant the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioner by taking his
past service as per the guidelines of the second respondent with all benefits including seniority and monetary
benefits. This case is a fittest case to award heavy cost against the first respondent for taking a stand which is
against the Acts and guidelines framed by UGC and AICTE and also against settled position of law laid down
by the Supreme Court as well as this court. However this court is not slapping any cost due to judicial
restraint. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. 26.11.2009

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes



1.The Government of Tamil Nadu

rep. by the Secretary to the

Government, Education Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of School Education,

College Road, Chennai-600 006.

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational

Officer, Avanasi, Coimbatore District.



W.P.No.10049 of 2004

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 7

S.Palanivel vs The Principal on 26 November, 2009


Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1990404/ 8