Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) Both the letters patent appeal has been filed after period of limitation, however, delay condonation application has been filed being I.A.No.414 of 2018 in L.P.A.No. 22 of 2018 and I.A.No.9493 of 2019 in L.P.A.No.661 of 2019. This Court, after considering the reason for condoning the delay, has condoned the delay, so far as it relates to L.P.A. No.22 of 2018, by allowing interlocutory application being I.A.No.414 of 2018 vide order dated 12.09.2019, similarly, the delay in filing L.P.A.No.661 of 2019 has also been condoned the delay by allowing I.A.No.9493 of 2019 vide order dated 27.02.2020. L.P.A. No.22 of 2018 & L.P.A.No.661 of 2019 These two intra-court appeals are against the judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.4162 of 2013, the subject matter of L.P.A.No.22 of 2018 and against the order dated 22.03.2018 passed in Civil Review No.83 of 2017, the subject matter of L.P.A. No.661 of 2019.
(2.) This Court, prior to scrutinizing the legality and propriety of the impugned orders which are the subject matter of the instant appeals requires to refer the certain facts of the case which enumerates as hereunder:-
(3.) The writ petitioners have been appointed initially as Lecturer on different dates in different colleges at the time of approaching to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They have disclosed that they were working as Reader in different departments under the Vinoba Bhave University except petitioner nos.8 and 9, as petitioner no.8 is working in P.K. Roy College, Dhanbad and petitioner no.9 is working in R.S. More College, Govindpur. The writ petitioners have been granted benefit of time bound promotion by virtue of different notifications issued in this regard granting them the said benefit to discharge their duties to the post of Reader and having found to be eligible to hold the post of Reader and as per the University Grants Commission Regulation, it was the case of the writ petitioners before the Writ Court that after introduction of provision of Career Advancement Scheme of the University Grants Commission which provides about minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturers Senior Scale would be four years for those with Ph.D., five years for those with M.Phil. and six years for those at the level of Lecturers and for eligibility to move into the grade of Reader/Lecturer-Selection Grade, the minimum length of service of the Lecturer in Senior Selection Grade shall be uniformly five years. As such, the writ petitioners have shown to be eligible for being placed at the Lecturer Selection Grade in the scale of Rs.12000-420-18300/- at the time of promotion to the post of Reader under the Scheme, but they have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/-, which according to the writ petitioners, are highly arbitrary and improper as because, according to the writ petitioners, when they are eligible to hold the post of Ph.D. Degree, as such, in view of the eligibility criteria fixing to take benefit under Career Advancement Claim Scheme of the University Grants Commission, they have become eligible after imparting four years of service to be placed in the Senior Selection Grade and after five years of the Service i.e., in the 9th year of their service, they have become eligible to be placed in the Selection Grade of Lecturer with the scale of pay of Rs.12000-420-18300/- but instead of providing the aforesaid pay scale after 10th year of service, they have provided with pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/-. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the authorities in a highly arbitrary manner have fixed a cut-off date i.e., 01.03.1989 laying down therein that the appointees who have appointed prior to 01.03.1989 as Readers would be placed in the pay scale of Rs.12000-420-18300/- but who have promoted after 01.03.1989, were provided with lesser scale of Rs.10000-15200/-, although they were posted as Reader as also they were imparting the same duties and are being discharged by the appointees prior to 01.03.1989. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the State of Jharkhand has implemented the U.G.C. packages including the Pay Revision and a letter to that effect has been issued on 13.11.2001 by the respondent no.2 to the various Universities accepting the University Grants Commission packages but the scale of pay which they have been provided, is not in accordance with University Grants Commission packages showing two different pay scales in the same class making the class amongst class itself which is a highly arbitrary exercise of the State of Jharkhand. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that while taking such decision, the State of Jharkhand has not taken into consideration the notification issued by the University Grants Commission on 24.12.1998 issued for the purpose of revision of a pay scale to provide minimum qualification for appointment to teacher in Universities and Colleges and other measures of maintenance of students, but in contravention to the said notification, two pay scales have been fixed for the post of Readers which is nothing but an arbitrary and discriminatory attitude of the respondent-State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioners have made representation before the Competent Authority but having not been considered, ultimately, the writ petitioners have filed writ petition before the Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter-alia on the ground that when the University Grants Commission have come out with a notification dated 24.12.1998 showing the pay scale of the Reader, there cannot be two pay scales by fixing a cut-off date 01.03.1989, while according to the writ petitioners, they are possessing requisite eligibility criteria to hold the post of Reader and as such, there cannot be any discrimination. ;