I.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) In response to an advertisement and the selection that followed, the petitioner was appointed as a Librarian by the Management of Maharaja Agrasen Mahavidyalya, Jugadhri, on Feb. 3, 1976, in the grade of Rs. 300-600. At the time of this appointment she concededly possessed the qualifications of M.A. in Music, 2nd Class and B. Library Science, 3rd Class, which qualifications were in line with those prescribed by the Kurukshetra University for the post. She continued to enjoy the above noted grade till May 18, 1979 when it was revised to Rs. 550-900 with effect from Jan. 1, 1973. She was even paid the arreas which became due to her. Later an audit party of the Education Department, Haryana, pointed out that since the petitioner was not possessed of the qualifications prescribed by the Government for the above noted post, i.e. M.A. 2nd Class and B. Lib. 2nd Class, she should have initially been appointed in the grade of Rs. 250-500 instead of Rs. 300-600 and thus all the grant paid by the Government to the college in terms of its policy to that effect was in excess of what should have been paid. The said audit party also recommended the recovery of the excess amount paid by the college to the petitioner. As' a result of this the Principal of the College addressed the following communication dated June 1, 1984 (Annexure P. 5) to the petitioner: MAHARAJA AGRASEN MAHAVIDYALYA JAGADHRI Ref. No. MAM/F.F./10009 Dated: 1.6.84. (REGISTERED A.D.) Mrs. Mohinder Kaur (Librarian), 16-A, Gobind Nagar, Ambala Cantt. Madam, This has referrence to audit reports given by the Auditors, D.H.E. Haryana. They have not accepted your placing in the new scale of Rs. 550-900 and as such, you are not eligible for the same. You are hereby placed in the unrevised scale of Rs. 250-15-500 from the date of your appointment. This is for your information please. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-Dr. G. Prakasb, PRINCIPAL' The petitioner preferred an appeal against,this order under section 10 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but the same has been dismissed by the Director Higher Education, Haryana, his order Annexure P. 9. The petitioner now impugns these orders, Annexure P. 5 and P. 9 on the following grounds-. i) Annexure P. 5 is violative of the principles of natural justice as it has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to her; and ii) Order Annexure P. 9 is violative of the proviso to section 4 of the Act which ensures that the conditions of service of the employees who were already in service, i.e., prior to April 19, 1979, cannot be varied or changed to his/her disadvantage.' Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to succeed on both the grounds.
(2.) It is not in dispute that when she was appointed as Librarian on Feb. 3, 1976 in the grade of Rs. 300-600, her qualifications and grade were in consonance with those prescribed by the Kurukshetra University vide its Calender for the year 1976, Volume I. As per Appendix 11 to this Calender, qualifications and grade prescribed for the post of Librarian in recognised Colleges, were as follows: "(iv) (a) Librarian: (I) Master's degree Rs. 300-25-600" with B. Lib. Sc./ D. Lib. Sc. Sec. 3 of the Act lays down that minimum qualifications for recruitment of various classes of employees shall be such as may, from time to time, be laid down by the University concerned and that the qualifications of an existing employee at the commencement of this Act cannot be varied to his disadvantage. Similarly section 4 of the Act ensured that service conditions of such an employee could not be varied to his disadvantage. This section reads as follows: "Method of recruitment and conditions of service. The method of recruitment, and the conditions of service, of theemployees shall be such as may be laid down by the University concerned: Provided that the conditions of service of an existing employee at the commencement of this Act shall not be varied to his disadvantage". The submission of Mr. Arora learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proviso to the above noted section ensures that in the case of affiliated colleges-Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri, is concededly affiliated to Kurukshetra University - the service conditions of their employees cannot be changed or altered in any manner. Grade in which the petitioner was to be paid her salary was essentially one such conditions of her service. His submission further is that in view of section 14 of the Act, the Government is entitled to stop, reduce or suspend grant- in-aid to an affiliated college only if it commits a violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under or any other directive issued by the Government in terms of section 12 of the Act for the proper enforcement of the provisions of the Act. In the absence of any such situation, according to the learned counsel, the Government cannot law fully stop or reduce the grant-in-aid payable to a college. I see merit in this submission of the learned counsel also. As has already been pointed out above, the appointment of the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 300-600 on Feb. 3, 1976 was strictly in consonance with the qualifications and grade prescribed by the Kurukshetra University for such employees and the conditions of service which essentially include pay-scale an employee protected by the proviso to section 4 of the Act, the Government cannot possibly suspend or reduce the grant-in-aid in the absence of violation of any provision of the Act or the rules made there-under. The learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refer to any provision of the Act which can be said to been violated by the management of the College of the petitioner. His case, however, is that this Act is not at all relevant in this case as the grant in question is being paid to the plea under certain instructions of the Government. In support of plea of his he makes a reference to the Government letter dated March 26, 1971 and March 26, 1974 (Annexure R. I and R. 2 respectively). I, however, find that it has nowhere been stated in these letters that the grant-in-aid would be payable by the Government to those affiliated colleges only whose staff fulfils the qualifications mentioned in these letters. The learned counsel for these authorities was allowed time on Aug. 1,. 1986 produce any such instruction or the Government decision which says that the grant-in-aid would 'be payable to the colleges the light of these two letters, i.e., Annexure R. 1 and R. 2. In the absence of any such order or policy decision by the Government I cannot attach any weight to the above noted submission of the learned counsel. Further, no issued amount of instructions by the Government can override the provisions of the Act. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act categorically lay down that qualifications and service conditions of the employees who were in the service of the affiliated colleges on the date of the commence of the Act, i.e., April 19, 1979, cannot be changed or varied to their disadvantage.
(3.) Annexure P. 5 is concededly a communication or an order as the petitioner chooses to call in, which has been issued in pursuance of the objection raised by the Auditors of the Haryana Government. The very objection raised by the Auditors the petitioner at the time of her initial appointment on Feb 3, 1976 should have been placed in the grade of. Rs. 250- 500-instead of Rs. 300-600 appears to be devoid of any merit in the light of the above noted provisions of the Act. This communication, therefore has essentially to be set aside on this ground alone . It has also to be held to be bad being violative of the principles of natural justice.;