Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya and ors. Vs. Punjab University, Chandigarh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [ k. subba rao, c.j.,; j.m. shelat and; r.s. bachawat, jj.] the executive committee of mizo district council refused to further renew the temporary licence issued to the appellant, a non-trader, for trading in mizo district. the licence could be issued for one year only and the appellant was trading after applying and obtaining its renewal from time to time. the appellant filed a writ petition, contending, that the order was mala fide in the sense that though the reason given for refusal was that the number of non-tribal traders had reached the maximum, the committee had in fact granted licences to new traders, and that the said order and s. 3 of the lushai hills district (trading by non-tribals) regulation, 1953 was invalid being violative of art. 19(1) (g) of the constitution. the high court maintained the order. in appeal to this court.held : (per subba rao, c. j. and shelat, j.) : section 3 of the regulation is violative of art. 19(1)(g) of the constitution. even if the sixth schedule can be said to contain a policy and the regulation may be said to have been enacted in pursuance of such a policy an analysis of the regulation shows that that is not sufficient. even if a statute lays down' a policy it is conceivable that its implementation may be left in such an arbitrary manner that the statute providing for such implementation would -amount to an unreasonable restriction. a provision which leaves an unbridled power to an authority cannot in any sense be characterised as reasonable. section 3 of the regulation is one such provision'. the regulation contains no principle or criterion on which the executive committee should grant or refuse to grant a licence or its renewal; nor does it provide any machinery under which an applicant can show cause why his application for a licence or its renewal should not be rejected; nor does it provide any superior authority before whom such an applicant can establish that the refusal by the committee is arbitrary or without any proper cause; and it leaves the trader not only at the mercy of the committee but also without any remedy. in the present case, the committee had given the reason for refusal to renew the licence, but the order did not state what that maximum was or who prescribed such a number and under what authority or what was the criterion for fixing any particular maximum. [1020 d; 1021 a-f] (per bachawat, j. dissenting) : section 3 of the regulation is not violative of arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution. if paragraph 10 of the sixth schedule of the constitution cannot be regarded as violative of any provision in the constitution, it is impossible to say that s. 3 of the regulation which is in strict conformity with paragraph 10 is violative of arts. 14 and 19(1)(g). the protection of the interests of the scheduled tribes is to be the guiding policy regulating the exercise of the discretion of the district council. in. the matter of granting or withholding trading licences to non-tribal traders. in the present case, the executive committee found that the maximum limit of non-tribal traders had been reached, and in the interest of the tribal it was not desirable to issue licence to more non-tribal traders. it was neither alleged nor shown that the committee discriminated between similarly situated persons. [1023 g; 1024 c-d; 1025 h ]   - the other appellants were doing teaching as well as research from the dates of their respective appointments. 400-30-640/40-800. 20-500 6. having failed to get a favourable decision from the university about fixation of their grades as per the aforesaid resolution, the appellants filed an application under article 226 in the high court of punjab and haryana which was dismissed by the learned single judge. it is significant to note from the letter of the ministry of education that government is keen regarding development of sanskrit in the country and it has im pressed upon all the universities, that they should employ at least one traditional sanskrit scholar and the scholar so employed should enjoy the same status and pay-scales as his counterparts trained on modern lines with equivalent degrees'.it goes on further to say 'that the employment of traditional sanskrit pandits in high/higher secondary schools/colleges should also be given the due encouragement. their claim to such scales cannot be defeated by the fact they are not also in addition holders of m. the appellants will be entitled to their costs here as well as in the high court.p.k. goswami, j.1. this is a case where certain sanskrit teachers educated in the traditional way and obtaining degrees of acharya are smarting under a grievance that they have the worse even in their own field of operation by the yardstick of the prevalent standard in the modern universities; 2. the four appellants are acharyas and were appointed in the vishve- shvaranand institute of sanskrit and indelogical studiesm hoshiarpur (briefly the institute) between the years 1944 and 1963 in the teaching department as pandidts. the teaching work in the institute commenced in the year 1960. the first appellant started teaching besides his research work from that year. the other appellants were doing teaching as well as research from the dates of their respective appointments. 3. the institute was taken over by the punjab university on november, 1967 giving it effect, however, from april 1, 1966. the vice-chancellor's recommendations that the pay scales of personnel in the traditional section be brought in line with the grades obtaining in the university were 'agreed to'' (para 3 of the special leave petition) at the meeting of the board of control. on april 1, 1966, the scale of pay of the appellants in the institute was rs. 100-8-22-10-300. the university fixed their grade at rs. 145-7-180-12-200 and that is their grievance. they claim the equivalent grade of acharyas in accordance with the revised scale in 1969. 4. it appears the senate approved the resolution of the board of control dated november 4, 1967, which reads as follows : that the following recommendation of the committee appointed by the board of control of v.v.r i. and i.s. hoshiarpur, regading pay scales, fixation of the salaries of the personnel in the tradition section, so as to bring in line with the grades prevailing in the university to sich be approved. 5. the punjab university's letter of november 6, 1969 contains the resolution regarding revision of pay scales of teaching personnel. the contents of this letter show that the syndicate vide para 66 of its proceedings dated october 26. 1969, had approved the following pay scales for teachers of affiliated/associated sanskrit institutions in punjab, haryana, himachal pradesh and union territory, chandigarh : category present pay scale proposed pay scale shastri plus b.a. rs. 150-10-250 rs. 220-10-350/15-500. or shastri dlus prabhakar acharya rs. 150-10-250 rs. 300-25-450/25-600. or shastri plus m.a. sanskrit principal rs. 200-15 320/ rs. 400-30-640/40-800. 20-500 6. having failed to get a favourable decision from the university about fixation of their grades as per the aforesaid resolution, the appellants filed an application under article 226 in the high court of punjab and haryana which was dismissed by the learned single judge. a letters patent appeal met with the same fate. hence appeal by special leave. 7. the only submission made on behalf of the university before us is that the scale of rs. 303-600 which is the proposed pay scale in place of the earlier scale of rs. 150-250 is available to acharyas provided they have also an m.a degree in sanskrit. this is the meaning which was given by the university to the resolution quoted above and the same is pressed into service before us by mr sibbal. we are, however, unable to accept the submission. 8. that acharya is equivalent to m a. is clear from the letter no. f. 46-i/63-su dated january 23, 1964, from the government of india, ministry of education to the education secretaries of all the state governments/union territory governments/administrations and registrars of all universities on the subject of equivalence of sanskrit examinations as given in an enclosed statement. entry 21 in column i of that statement mentions the punjab university, chandigarh, where shastri is shown as eqvivalent to b.a. and acharya to m.a. it is significant to note from the letter of the ministry of education that government is keen regarding development of sanskrit in the country and it has im pressed upon all the universities, 'that they should employ at least one traditional sanskrit scholar and the scholar so employed should enjoy the same status and pay-scales as his counterparts trained on modern lines with equivalent degrees'. it goes on further to say 'that the employment of traditional sanskrit pandits in high/higher secondary schools/colleges should also be given the due encouragement. teachers so employed should be treated on par with other teachers possessing equivalent qualifications of the general educational set up'.9. that being the position the appellants should have a real grievance if being acharyas they re now shown the cold shoulder by the university in not giving them their due recognition. from the letter of the registrar, punjab university, dated november 6, 1969, quoted above, it is clear that shastri plus b.a. or shastri plus prabhakar is one category and is interior to acharya which is at per with shastri plus m a. sanskrit. it is, therefore, clear even from the above letter of the university that acharyas need not have in addition an m.a. degree in sanskrit in order to be entitled to the grade of rs. 300-600 quoted above. it is, therefore, clear that after their services have been taken over by the university, the appellants will be entitled to scales of pay appertainining to acharyas and as available to them during the relevant period. their claim to such scales cannot be defeated by the fact they are not also in addition holders of m.a. degree in sanskrit. 10. no other point was canvassed before us on behalf of the respondents. 11. in the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the high court is set aside. the punjab university is directed to allow their cases of pay for acharyas to the appellants from the time of their entitlement to the same. the appellants will be entitled to their costs here as well as in the high court.