Judgment:
B.P. Das, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.9.2002 passed by the State Government in Higher Education Department vide Annexure - 6, the order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the under Secretary to the Chancellor vide Annexure - 7 and the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 17.2.2003 under agenda No. 26 vide, Annexure - 8, by which the post held by the petitioner i.e. Research Associate in the Business Administration Department of the Berhampur University, has been re-designated as Lecturer with effect from 22.10.2002 and to direct the opposite parties to re-designate the said post of Research Associate as Lecturer from the date of his joining the post of Research Associate, i.e. 8.5.1991 and also to allow him the benefit of Career Advancement Scale by treating his verified service from the date of his initial appointment and other consequential service benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was consistently a good student during his academic career with first division all through from Matriculation to Post Graduate. The petitioner obtained his MBA Degree from the University of Poona in the year 1987-89 in 'A' Grade. Moreover, he became the first man from Orissa to clear the University Grant Commission (UGC) National Educational Test (NET) for being eligible to lectureship on management in 1989/April 1990. The petitioner claims that he was also a brilliant scholar with unique distinction of being short-listed for the coveted FULBRIGHT Post-Doctoral Fellowship of the U.S. Educational Foundation in India.
On introduction of M.B.A. Programme in the Berhampur University, on the recommendation of the All India Board of Management Studies, the University Grant Commission (UGC) by its letter dated 30.4.1987 vide Annexure-1 conveyed its approval to the non-recurring and recurring grants for starting of the M.B.A. course in the University. In the said letter the UGC created and sanctioned recurring grants for several posts including six posts of Lecturers (including Research Associates/ Case Analyst). Thereafter the State Government in the erstwhile Education and Youth Services Department accorded its concurrence to the creation and approval of the posts by the UGC for the Business Administration Department of the University.
On 30.4.1990, the University issued an advertisement vide Annexure-3 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts including the post of Research Associate in the Business Administration Department. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid post of Research Associate carrying the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-, which was equal to the scale of pay meant for the Lecturers. The petitioner on being selected by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose was appointed as Research Associate on 6.5.1991 with the approval of the Syndicate. The petitioner joined the post on 8.5.1991 but continued to discharge the duties of Lecturer. Since the petitioner was discharging exactly the same work as that of the Lecturers working in the MBA Department, the University authorities vide Annexure-4 series recommended to the UGC to re-designate the post of Research Associate as Lecturer, Considering the aforesaid recommendation, the UGC by its letter dated 20.11.1998 under Annexure-5 intimated that it has no objection to redesignate the post of Research Associate as Lecturer.
On the basis of the recommendation of the University authorities vide Annexure-4 series, the Deputy Secretary to the Government in Higher Education Department vide letter dated 20.9.2002 (Annexure-6) conveyed the decision of the State Government to re-designate the posts of Research Associate and Case Analyst as Lecturers in the scale of pay of Rs. 8,000-275-13,500/- in the Department of Business Administration of the University with effect from the date of issue of the order. Thereafter the Under Secretary to the Chancellor of the University conveyed the approval of the Chancellor to re-designate the posts of Research Associate and Case Analyst as Lecturers from the date of issue of the order, i.e. 22.10.2002.
3. The petitioner has annexed the information received by him under the Right to Information Act as Annextire-12 Series and Annexure-13 to the additional affidavit filed by him on 27.2.2007. According to the petitioner, the note contained at page-29/N in the relevant file of the Higher Education Department, i.e. File No. IHEU-108 of 2001, under Annexure-12 series, discloses that recommendation was made to re-designate the incumbents holding the posts of Research Associate and Case Analyst as Lecturer from the date of their joining in the University. The aforesaid note was submitted by the Addl. Secretary to Government and the same was approved by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government in Higher Education Department as well as by the Minister of State, Higher Education. The aforesaid Annexure also discloses that the same Addl. Secretary to the Government after discussing with the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, submitted a note on 4.9.2002 at page-30/N that the proposal of the Department for re-designation of the posts of Research Associate and Case Analyst in the Department of MBA in Berhampur University have been concurred by the Finance Department and that the Minister of State, Higher Education has approved the proposal at pre-page. The file was than submitted for approval of the Chief Minister. Prior to submission of the file to the Chief Minister, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary in his note made mention that the 'Re-designation may be considered with prospective effect, to avoid legal complications'. The said note was approved by the Chief Secretary as well as the Minister and the Chief Minister.
The case of the petitioner is that non approval of his case for re-designation as Lecturer from the date on which he joined the post of Research Associate in the University is prejudicial to his interest and discriminatory and the order passed to that effect is against the recommendations made by all the authorities. Hence the aforesaid action of the opposite parties is illegal.
According to the petitioner, the note of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary does not indicate the nature of legal complications sought to be avoided as the petitioner has to be-redesignated as the last Lecturer and he undertakes not to claim any seniority over the Lecturers or Research Associates or Case Analysts whose case had been considered earlier and they were re-designated as Lecturers. According to him, the aforesaid note of Commissioner-cum-Secretary is merely based on apprehension and there is no reason behind such apprehension.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has submitted that the State Government considering the case of Dr. Urmimala Das, who was working as Research Associate in the Women's Studies Research Centre of the University, by order dated 13.2.2008 re-designated the post of Research Associate of the Research Centre as Lecturer along with re-designation of the incumbent of the said post, i.e. Dr. Das from a retrospective date, i.e. 26.2.2000, when the Government took over the liabilities of the Research Centre on permanent basis. According to the petitioner, there is no reason as to why the petitioner's case would not be considered at par with Dr. Urmimala Das.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University authorities wherein it is disclosed that Berhampur University has recommended the case of the petitioner for the purpose of giving him financial benefit, but the said recommendation of the University cannot be construed to be a recommendation to put the petitioner over and above the incumbents already holding the posts of Lecturer prior to the date of joining of the petitioner as Research Associate.
5. So far as the case of Dr. Urmimala Das is concerned, learned Counsel for the State submits that the same cannot be compared with the case of the petitioner as Dr. Das was appointed as a Research Associate in a Research Centre and was not directly appointed in any Department of the University. At the same time, learned Counsel for the State submits that the note of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary can be interpreted that if the petitioner would be allowed to get the benefit from the date of his joining, legal complications may arise.
6. The fact that the petitioner has a brilliant academic career has not been disputed by any of the parties. As the petitioner has categorically stated that he will not claim seniority over any other Lecturers or incumbents of the posts of Research Associate and Case Analyst, who were redesignated as Lecturers prior to his joining, i.e. 8.5.1991, we are at a loath to buy the plea taken by the State that legal complications would arise, because no other person was left to be re-designated as Lecturer nor anybody is going to be affected by this order in view of the undertaking of the petitioner.
7. As the State Government has stated that there will be no financial implication if the petitioner is given the scale of pay of Lecturer, because he has already been drawing salary in the same scale of pay being the Research Associate, we think that nobody would be affected if the petitioner would be re-designated as Lecturer from the date of his joining as Research Associate.
8. We accordingly quash the orders dated 20.9.2002 and 22.10.2002 passed by the opposite parties vide Annexures-6 and 7 respectively as well as the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 17.2.2003 under agenda No. 26 vide Annexure-8 and direct the opposite parties to re-designate the petitioner as Lecturer from the date of his joining the post of Research Associate, i.e. 08.05.1991. We reiterate that the petitioner shall not get any financial benefit as admittedly he has been drawing the salary in the scale of pay of Lecturer and he shall not claim seniority over any other Lecturers or Research Associates or Case Analysts, whose cases had already been considered earlier and they were re-designated as Lecturers prior to the date of joining of the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
Requisites for communication of this order be filed within three days.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Indrajit Mahanty, J.
I agree.