THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.

6720 OF 2004 ORDER: This case brings into focus the apathy and indifference shown by the authorities to our Teachers. Impervious to the fact that Education is an instrument for national reconstruction and social cohesion as recognized by the Supreme Court, the State authorities continue to pay little heed to the individual pedagogue. The case on hand is one such instance where a retired septuagenarian principal of a private college is still running from pillar to post seeking redressal of his grievance. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in AKM Oriental College, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, the fourth respondent, in the year 1966. He was promoted as the Principal of the fourth respondent-college in the year 1971 and was thereafter fixed in the UGC scale of Rs.700-1600 as per

G.O.Ms.No.1072 dated 26.11.1976. The University Grants Commission (for brevity, the UGC) revised the pay scales in the year 1986, which were extended to all Government and private aided colleges by way of

G.O.Ms.No.520, Education (UE) Department, dated 15.12.1988. By that time, the petitioner had rendered more than 16 years of service as a Principal. However, he was granted the scale of a Lecturer (Selection Grade) Rs.37005700. Aggrieved by the action of the authorities in not granting him the higher pay scale of Rs.4500-7300, the petitioner submitted representations dated

15.04.1990, 25.01.1992, 17.11.1992 and 05.07.1993. Spurred by the inaction on the part of the authorities in responding to his pleas, the petitioner, having retired from service by then, approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.23512 of 1995 seeking a declaration that Principals were entitled to a higher scale of pay than that of a Lecturer and praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay him a higher scale than Rs.3700-5700. He also sought pension and pensionary benefits as per the above pay fixation along with arrears. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 09.08.2002. The said order reads as hereunder:
The petitioner, after his retirement as Principal of the degree college, is aggrieved by the Revised Pay Scales issued by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.520, Education (UE) Department, dated 15.12.1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the schedule attached to the said G.O. the Lecturer of the Selection Grade (not existing) was given Revised Pay Scales of Rs.3700-5700. In so far as the Principal of a college is concerned, it is further categorized as Grade-I with Revised Pay Scale of Rs.3700-5700 and Grade-II with Revised Pay Scale of Rs.4500-7300. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner falls under category 6(i) or (ii). However, this grievance appears to be genuine. But it is to be noted that the said G.O. came to be issued in the year 1988 itself though the implementation was effected on 01.01.1986. Only after retirement the petitioner realized this anomaly. This realization about the alleged anomaly ought to have taken place immediately or after a reasonable period. However, this Court is not expressing any opinion on this controversy. A representation filed by the petitioner with regard to the facts and circumstances, it is suffice to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

In pursuance of the above order, the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, issued the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.389/Admn.IV-4/96 dated 18.11.2002. The request of the petitioner for a higher pay scale, i.e. Rs.4500-7300, was rejected on the ground that the said scale was allowed to Professors and as the post of Professor did not exist in the fourth respondentCollege, the petitioner was not entitled to such scale. The proceedings dated 18.11.2002 were communicated by the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, to the fourth respondentcollege, under proceedings dated 20.11.2003 requesting the college to communicate the same to the petitioner. The present writ petition challenges the proceedings dated 18.11.2002 and also the proceedings dated 20.11.2003. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, the Joint Director, O/o the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, stated that the Principals post was a promotional post and that the Lecturer who is the senior-most would be appointed to the said post. He further stated that there was no career advancement for a Principal under G.O.Ms.No.520 dated 15.12.1988 and therefore the petitioner would only be extended the scale allowed to a Lecturer (Selection Grade) under the said scheme, upon completion of 16 years of service. The Joint Director reaffirmed that the petitioners request for the scale of Rs.4500-7300 was liable to be rejected as the same was applicable to the

post of a Professor which was not existing in the fourth respondent-college. He further stated that unless the Government takes a policy decision to allow the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7300 to Principals on completion of 16 years of service as such, the said benefit could not be extended to the petitioner. Relevant to note, this counter affidavit was filed on 09.09.2006. The UGC, the third respondent, filed a separate counter through its Joint Secretary, stating that there was no career advancement scheme for the post of Principal but the scale of pay of Rs.16400-22400 had been recommended by the UGC for the post of Principal in the Colleges having P.G. programmes and autonomous colleges with a strength of above 2000. In the light of the above pleadings, the issue that falls for consideration is whether the State authorities have applied their mind to the issue in the proper perspective while considering the request of the petitioner, as reflected in the rejection proceedings dated 18.11.2002? It is relevant to note that this Court, by its order dated 09.08.2002 in Writ Petition No.23512 of 1995, specifically adverted to the fact that Schedule-I to G.O.Ms.No.520 dated 15.12.1988 under Sl.No.6(i) and (ii), spoke of two grades of Principals of colleges and the revised pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 was made applicable to the category under Sl.No.6(i) while the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7300 was made applicable to the Principals under Sl.No.6(ii). This Court further observed that it was not clear as to whether the petitioner fell under the category (i) or (ii) of Sl.No.6. Having stated so, this Court pointed out

that the petitioners grievance appeared to be genuine and therefore directed consideration of his representations in this regard. A reading of the impugned proceedings dated 18.11.2002 clearly demonstrates that the aforestated aspects referred to by this Court in the order dated 09.08.2002 were not even considered. On the short ground that the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7300 was applicable to the post of Professor and as no such post was available in the fourth respondent-college, the request of the petitioner was bluntly refused. The counter affidavit filed by the State authorities seeks to project that the post of Lecturer is on par with that of the Principal of the college, as the senior-most Lecturer would be promoted to the said post. This view loses sight of the fact that the Principal of the college would not only be undertaking teaching activity but would also be the administrative head of the institution. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE v. T.JOSE1[1], the Principal of an educational institution is responsible for the functional efficiency of the institution, as also the quality of education and discipline in the institution. He is also responsible for maintaining the philosophy and objects of the institution. The Supreme Court made reference therein to its earlier Judgment in STATE OF KERALA v. VERY REV. MOTHER PROVINCIAL2[2], wherein it was reiterated that the post

of Principal was of pivotal importance in the life of a college; around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline, and the efficiency of its teaching; and the right to choose the Principal is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a college. Again, in N.AMMAD v. MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL 3 [3], the Supreme Court affirmed that the post of Principal is the key post in the running of an institution. He was said to be the hub on which all the spokes of the institution are set, around whom they rotate to generate result. The functional efficacy of the institution depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Principal. In the light of the opinion expressed by the Apex Court with regard to the nature and importance of the post of a Principal, the stand taken by the State authorities that no special importance attaches to the said post and that it should be treated on par with that of a Lecturer, is clearly fallacious. The authorities were equally unmindful of the observations of the Supreme Court in FRANK ANTHONY PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA 4 [4], that maintenance of educational standards and excellence of the

educational institutions would depend directly on the excellence of the teaching staff, and in turn, that would depend on the quality and contentment of the Teachers. Unless the conditions of service of Teachers are improved, persons of high caliber befitting such profession would not be attracted to it. Any shortfall in the teaching profession and consequently, educational standards would be drastically detrimental to the interests of the student community and perhaps, suicidal for the shaping of our future. Neglect of the teaching profession by the State would therefore be debilitative to our interests in the long run and must therefore be checked. In the present case, the State authorities did not even choose to apply their mind as to whether the case of the petitioner fell within Sl.No.6(i) or 6(ii) as pointed out by this Court in its earlier Judgment. No reasons are forthcoming either from G.O.Ms.No.520 dated 15.12.1988 or the counter affidavit filed in this case as to why a distinction was made between the two grades of Principals of colleges in Schedule-I attached to the said G.O. The counter affidavit filed by the UGC indicates that a higher scale of pay has been recommended for the post of Principal in particular colleges, but the counter of the State authorities is silent as to what was the import of the

recommendations of the UGC in so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. Further, having stated as long back as in September, 2006 that unless the Government took a policy decision in this regard, the petitioner would not be entitled, the State Government has not come forward with any further exercise in this regard. In spite of sufficient time being allowed, the

learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to state as to whether the authorities have taken or intend to take any policy decision with regard to ameliorating the conditions of Principals of private aided colleges. By the impugned proceedings dated 18.11.2002, the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, has only paid lip service to the direction given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation with regard to consideration of the petitioners representation. The issue has been left on the backburner for long enough. The petitioner is now a man of advanced years and is still awaiting fair consideration of his request. The proceedings impugned in this writ petition, being Rc.No.389/Admn.IV-4/96 dated

18.11.2002 and Rc.No.289/Admn.IV-2/96 dated 20.11.2003, are therefore set aside and the first and second respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove after duly consulting the UGC, the third respondent. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation in this regard duly setting out the full details in support of his claim for a higher pay scale. The petitioner shall make this representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first and second respondents shall consider the same, after consulting the UGC, the third respondent, and pass reasoned orders thereupon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case which clearly demonstrate the lack of care and concern shown by the authorities in complying with the earlier order of this Court in true letter and

spirit, the first and second respondents are liable to pay costs to the petitioner, quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand).