- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.9.1994 (Annexure P-4) whereby the benefit of M.Phil increment was withdrawn by the Principal, Government College of Education, Bhiwani.
(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner was that he passed his M.Phil in the year 1981 and had joined as Lecturer in Government service, Education Department on 24.3.1990. The Government had issued instruction dated 12.9.1989 whereby the teachers recruited after 1.1.1986 who were M.Phil at the time of recruitment were entitled to one and three advance increments respectively in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The petitioner being covered under the said policy submitted a representation for the grant of the said benefit and vide letter dated 4.8.1990 he was granted the benefit of one increment on account of being M.Phil with effect from 24.3.1990 the date of his joining. Accordingly, his pay was fixed at Rs. 2275/- in the grade of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 by respondent no.2. The petitioner had submitted complaint against respondent no.2-Principal, Government College of Education, Bhiwani who was having a grouse against him and had terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of a Programme Officer by ignoring all rules and regulations which the petitioner had challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.13470 of 1994. The said impugned order was also passed at the instance of the said Principal. The challenge was made to the order on the ground that the petitioner was never heard before the withdrawal of the increment and principle of natural justice had been violated and even otherwise he is entitled to the said increment as he was appointed as Lecturer in History and he had the said additional qualification of M.Phil at the time of his recruitment.
(3.) The reply filed by the Principal sought to justify the action on the ground that the petitioner was IIIrd class in B.Ed. and was not having M.Ed. degree and the copy of letter of the University dated 5.11.1990 was placed on record. Hence the petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer in College of Education. It was accordingly pleaded that petitioner was M.Phil in History but not M.Phil in Education and since he was posted in the College of Education, he should have done M.Phil in Education and, therefore, he was not entitled for the benefit of the said increment. The allegations regarding bias were denied.;