RAMESH CHANDER LADOHIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the respondent No. 3 -College in the pay scale of Rs. 250 -550 on 8.8.1972. His appointment was ratified by the H.P. University vide order dated 16th May, 1980. The respondent No.3 -College was recognized as ˜Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya w.e.f. 1st April, 1993 in sequel to Notification dated 25.3.1994. the petitioner who was working as Lecturer (Hindi), was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher with a specific condition that he shall have to improve his M.A. Hindi qualification within two years. Thereafter, his case was to be reviewed for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) if he improved his qualification within the stipulated period. He appeared in M.A. Ist Semester examination held in the month of November, 1994. He completed his M.A. degree in the year 1996. He made a representation to the Director, National Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi on 2nd February, 2000 seeking pay scale of Rs. 2200 -4000 instead of 1800 -3200. He has also mentioned in his representation that the management of the respondent No. 3 -College had recommended his case. He made representations for the release of Lecturer scale and pay fixation on 2nd April, 2005 and 10th May, 2005. When the representations made by him were not addressed to by the respondents, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1247 of 2005.

(2.) The court directed the respondents No. 2 and 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order along with copy of representation of 1st December, 2005. This Court on 2nd March, 2006 directed that the representation of the petitioner be decided by the respondent No.1 -Union of India instead of respondents No. 2 and 3. In sequel to order dated 2.3.2006, the petitioner made a representation to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development on 13.3.2006. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 28.4.2006. The petitioner had assailed this order dated 28.4.2006 in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Maniktala on the basis of Annexure P -3 dated 25.3.1994 had strenuously argued that his client had qualified M.A. (Hindi) within two years and was entitled to be appointed as Lecturer. He also contended that the impugned order dated 28.4.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Maniktala has also contended that his client could only appear in the examination of M.A. (Hindi) in the month of November, 1994 and he has completed his degree within two years.