A
ALL MANIPUR GOVERNMENT COLLEGES TEACHERS
B
c
ASSOCIATION
v.
ALL MANIPUR COLLEGE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
APRIL 19, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
S e1Vice Law :
Promotion to the post of Director from Principals of Taken-over Col-
lege;-Ten years expe1ie11ce insisted upon-But not for the P1incipals of
private colleges-Hl/1ether discrin1inato1)--Held, subsequently Goven1n1e11t
e.Yplaining that IO years expe1ience as Lecturer/P1incipal, for proniotion as
Director--That is no discri111i11ation.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7713-14
of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.94 of the Assam High Court
in W.A. No. 30 and 31 of 1993.
E
P.P. Rao, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, and Decpak Dewan, for the Appel-
F
G
lant.
L.K. Paonam and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents.
Ms. S. Janani for State.
B.B. Sawlmey and Rishi Kesh for the Respondents.
The fol1owing Order of the Court \Vas delivered :
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Gauhati made on August 2, 1994 in W.A. Nos.
30 and 31 of 1993. This Court on February 9, 1996 noticed the contention
raised by Shri Rao that the Principals in the private colleges taken over by
the Government, were not required to put in minimum length of service as
H lecturer, while the lecturer in Government college, to become principal is
592
ALL MANIPUR GOVT. COLLEGES TEACHERS ASSN. v. ALL MAN IP UR COLLEGE TEACHERS ASSN. 593
required to out in three years' service, as initial period, to become lecturer A
and 10 years' service thereafter as a lecturer. The Government in G.O. No.
9 dated 11.4.1994, while exercising the power under Article 309 of the
Constitution, issued the orders w.e.f. the date of the application indicating
that the past service rendered by the employees of the Government col-
leges in Government aided/private educational institutions which were
subsequently taken over by the State Government on or before December
20, 1979 shall be counted as experience of service required for promotion
or direct recruitment, as the case may be, provided that there were no
interruption in between. Based thereon, it was contended that since the
Principals who worked in the private colleges were appointed directly or
promoted as principals without insisting upon the minimum 10 years'
service, they would always steal a march over Government lecturers to
become Principals and also as Directors in the higher ladder of services
B
c
and that the discrimination would always loom large as against Government
Lecturers/Principals since the Principals of the private colleges would
remain to be seniors to the Principals in the Government colleges. Since D
the learned counsel appearing for the State did not have instructions, she
had sought fur and was granted ti1ne. The governn1cnt have now explained
in their orders that they are insisting upon the private lecturers 10 years'
service as Principal for promotion as Director and that, therefore, the
seniority is being counted after computing minimum 10 years' service as
lecturer/principal, as the case may be, to the post of Directors. If, as ·a
E
consequence of such computation, they become seniors, the inevitable
would follow and no discrimination can be imputed that account. It is also
made clear by the Government that they are maintaining two separate
seniority lists, one of the Government teachers and the other the
teachers/Principals working in the taken-over colleges, as another list. It is
F
made clear that the above order would be applicable only in respect of the
teachers of the taken-over colleges as indicated in the rule itself.
The appeals ar.e disposed of accordingly. No. costs.
G.N.
Appeals disposed of.
Lex