- (1.) U. P. Singh, J. The petitioner has moved first petition for issuing a writ, order of direction that the requirement of continuous service under the Government Order dated 7-1-1989 (Annexure A to thand writ petition) is illegal and the petitioner was entitled for the grant of selection grade of Lecturers, i. e. Rs. 3700-5700 under the said Government Order dated 7-1-1989 with effect from the date of com pletion of 13 years of service by her. The second petition is consequential of the outcome of the first petition. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner after obtaining the degree of Ph. D. in Botany in 1964, had gone and settled in Canada. Vide order dated 19-7-1971 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition), the petitioner was appointed as a Pool Officer under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Scheme (hereinafter called the Scheme ). In pursuance of the said order the petitioner worked as Pool Officer in the Allahabad Agriculral In stitute of the Allahabad University, which is governed by the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 from 21-8-1972 to 20-8-1975. The petitioner was ap pointed as a lecturer in the said Institute, vide order dated 20-8-1975 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and was confirmed on the said post, vide order dated 26-4-1976. The petitioner, vide letter dated 12-7-1977 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) sub mitted her resignation from the said post and it was accepted, view order dated 13-7-1977. The petitioner worked as Editorial Assistant to the Scientific Journal publish ed by the Sulaimaniyah University, Iraq from 25-2-1978 to 2-7-1979. The petitioner was again appointed as a Pool Officer in the said Institute vide letter dated 19-3-1980 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) for a period of one year with effect from 16-4-1980 and this period was further extended, vide order dated 20-5-1981 till 16-4-1982. The petitioner joined as a Lecturer on 19-7-1982 in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 30-6- 1982 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) in the said Institute and is continuing since then as Lecturer.
(2.) ON 22-7-1988 the Central Govern ment issued a Circular implementing the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, revising the pay scales of teachers in Universities and Col leges etc. with effect from 1-1-1986 (An-nexure-11 to the writ petition ). The aforesaid scheme was evolved with a view to prevent stagnation and also to improve their efficiency. The relevant portion of the said Scheme reads as under: - Career Advancement (vi ). (vii) "every Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader in the Scale of Rs. 3700-5700 if he/she has: (a) completed 8 years of service in the senior scale, provided that the requirement of 8 years will be relaxed if the total service of the lecturer is not less than 16years. " In pursuance of the aforesaid circular dated 22-7-1988, the U. P. Government is sued G. O No. 91- G10/15-11-88-14 (15)/87 dated 7-1-89, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under: Career Advancement 10. Senior Scale Eligibility.- "a Lecturer in University or in an affiliated/associated Col lege will be eligible for placement in a Senior Scale of Rs. 300-5000 if he/she has: (a) Completed 8 years of continuous and full time service after regular appointment. This service must have been rendered on an ap proved post after regular selection in Permanent or Temporary Capacity in any University or Post graduate or Undergraduate Degree College or institute (imparting instructions in degree and/or post graduate courses and/or guiding research) but shall not include service rendered in ad hoc capacity. Provided that benefit of one year for three years, as the case may be, will be allowed to such lecturer as possesses M. Phil, or Doctorate Degree. " (b ). . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . 14. Promotion as Reader Eligibility.- A Lecturer in University or in Affiliated College will be eligible for promotion as Reader in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700- 5700 if he/she has: (a) Completed 8 years of service in the senior scale. Requirement of 8 years service in senior scale will be relaxed if the total continuous and full time service of the Lecturer is not less than 16 years. This service of 16 years must have been rendered on an approved post after regular selection in temporary of permanent capacity in any University or Post Graduate or Under Graduate Degree College or Institute within the State (imparting instructions in de gree and/or Post Graduate courses and or guid ing research but shall not include service rendered in ad hoc capacity. Provided that benefit of one year or three years, as the case may be, will be allowed to such Lecturer as possesses M. Phil, or Doctorate Degree if this benefit has already not been allowed in senior scale. " (b ). (c ). . (d ). The Scheme further provided for constituting a screening Committee which would review the work of the applicants and take appropriate decision under the Personal Promotion Scheme. It is provided that if a person is not found fit for the Senior Grade or Selection Grade, his work can be reviewed again after a year. Thus, the personal promotion is not auto matic, but on eligibility cum merit. The petitioner applied on 3-2-1990 for the selection grade, i. e. Rs. 3700-5700/-claiming that she had completed 13 years of service, but her representation was rejected by the Institute, vide order dated 5- 9-1990 (Annexure-13 to the writ peti tion) on the ground that the petitioner had not put in 10 years continuous service to her credit as Lecturer and only on this ground her application was not placed before the Screening Committee as there had been breaks in her service. The petitioner approached this Court and this Court, vide its order dated 22-10-1990 stayed the operation of the order dated 6-9-1990 (Annexure-13 to the writ peti tion) and the respondent institute was directed to place the case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the Screening Com mittee which would consider her case for the grant of Selection Grade irrespective of the fact that the petitioner had not com pleted 13 years continuous service. In pursuance of the order of this Court the Screening Committee con sidered the case of the petitioner on 21-7-1993 and allotted her the Senior Scale of Rs. 3000-5000 with effect from 1-1-1986 and the Selection Grade of Rs. 3700-5700 with effect from 4-8-1988. The respondent Institute forwarded the recommendations of the Screening Committee, but respon dent No. 2, Director of Higher Education fixed the Senior Scale of the petitioner, vide its order dated 7-10-1993 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) with effect from 19-7-1987. Being aggrieved and dissatis fied the petitioner filed the second writ petition.
(3.) THE respondents filed the counter affidavit and their main case is that the petitioner was not eligible for considera tion for the Selection Grade before completing 13 years service from 19-7-1982. According to them, the petitioner after reappointment in 1982, had claimed two increments in pay on the basis of her previous service which had been rejected by the Government, vide its order dated 3-3-1984 (Annexure-CA 3 to the writ petition) only on the ground that after resignation the petitioner had no claim or lien on the said post and, thus, the question of pay protection did not arise. As the parties have exchanged the counter and rejoinder affidavits, the mat ter has been heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.;