- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17-6-1996 Annexure 12 to the writ petition and the order dated 13-1-1993 Annexure 9-A to the writ petition and quashing the condition of one year period in sub-clause 'cha' of the GO dated 30-6-1992 Annexure 9 to the petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to fix the senior scale of the petitioner from 9-9-1985 taking into account the service as ad hoc lecturer from 9-9-1985 till 19-8-1986.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as ad hoc lecturer in the institution in question on 9-9-1985 vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition and thereafter she was selected by the U. P. Higher Education Service Com mission and her name was recommended vide order dated 14-8-1986 to the Manager of the College, i. e. Ishwar Saran Degree College, Allahabad vide Annexure 4 to the petition. In pursuance of this recommen dation, the Committee of Management of the college issued a fresh appointment let ter dated 20-8-1986 Annexure 5 to the petition. Since then the petitioner has been continuing as a regular lecturer from 20-8-1986 and was confirmed by the resolution of the Committee of Manage ment dated 2-9-1991 w. e. f. 1-4-1991. True copy of the confirmation letter is An nexure 6. In paragraph 15 of the petition it is stated that the pay-scale of the teachers was revised by GO letter dated 10-4-1987. The petitioner claims senior scale from 9-9-1985 i. e. the date of her initial appoint ment as ad hoc lecturer but she received a letter dated 13-1-1993 (Annexure 9-A) stating that her service as ad hoc lecturer cannot be taken into consideration for grant of senior scale as the period of ser vice as ad hoc lecturer is less than one year. The petitioner made a representation against this order but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 17-6-1996. Hence this petition. In the counter-affidavit it is stated in paragraph 3 (g) that the petitioner's ad hoc service is less than one year and hence could not be taken into consideration in view of the GO dated 30-6-1992 and hence she was awarded the senior scale of lec turer on the basis of her service beginning from 20-8-1986.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid condition in Clause 4 in the GO dated 30-6-1992 is arbitrary and discriminatory since a lec turer serving in ad hoc capacity appointed on the same day but selected by the Higher Education Commission after one year would get the benefit of senior scale from the date of his initial appointment while that benefit would not be available to the lecturer who was selected by the Commis sion before the expiry of one year. Hence, he urged that a person selected later would be better off than the person selected ear lier. In the rejoinder-affidavit in para graph 22 reference has been made by the petitioner to one Suman Agarwal was selected by the Higher Education Com mission in 1988, that is much after petitioner's selection in 1986, but by virtue of the impugned GO dated 30-6-1992 she has been given selection grade from 29-9-1990 while the petitioner has been given that grade from 20-8-1991. Dr. Suman Agarwal has also been treated as senior to the petitioner and has been promoted as Reader w. e. f. 31-7-1999. In our opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is a clear discrimination against the petitioner be cause person selected in a regular capacity by the Commission after one year of his/her ad hoc appointment will get benefit of the GO dated 30-6-1992 on senior scale from the date of ad hoc ap pointment whereas the petitioner who was selected by the Commission prior to com pletion of one year of ad hoc appointment is denied that benefit merely because the petitioner did not complete one year ad hoc service. Hence, in our opinion Clause 1 (cha) of the GO dated 30-6-1992 is clear ly arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, we quash Clause 1 (cha) of the GO dated 30-6-1992 and we set aside the im pugned order dated 13-1-1993 and 17-6-1996. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to fix the senior scale of the petitioner from 9-9-l ()85 and pay her all benefits including arrears within three months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.;