ALL MANIPUR GOVERNMENT COLLEGES TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONversusALL MANIPUR COLLEGE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 554
- Decided
- 19 April 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The Government order does not constitute discrimination as it uniformly requires ten years of service for promotion and maintains separate seniority lists, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The All Manipur Government Colleges Teachers Association challenged a Government order that counted service in taken‑over private colleges towards promotion to Director, alleging discrimination against government lecturers and principals. The petitioners argued that principals of private colleges were promoted without the ten‑year lecturer service requirement, giving them seniority over government staff. The State explained that the order (G.O. No. 9 dated 11‑April‑1994) under Article 309 requires a minimum of ten years of service as lecturer or principal for promotion to Director, and that separate seniority lists are maintained for government teachers and those from taken‑over colleges. The Supreme Court examined whether the order created unlawful discrimination or merely applied a uniform service‑requirement. It held that the requirement of ten years’ service for all candidates, coupled with distinct seniority lists, negates any claim of discrimination. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the order of the High Court upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government order requiring ten years of service for promotion to Director discriminates against government lecturers and principals.
- Whether counting service in taken‑over private colleges for promotion violates the principle of equality under Article 309 of the Constitution.
- Whether maintaining separate seniority lists for government teachers and taken‑over college staff is permissible.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 309
Subjects
Judgment
A ALL MANIPUR GOVERNMENT COLLEGES TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION
v.
ALL MANIPUR COLLEGE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
APRIL 19, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
S e1Vice Law :
Promotion to the post of Director from Principals of Taken-over Col-
c lege;-Ten years expe1ie11ce insisted upon-But not for the P1incipals of
private colleges-Hl/1ether discrin1inato1)--Held, subsequently Goven1n1e11t
e.Yplaining that IO years expe1ience as Lecturer/P1incipal, for proniotion as
Director--That is no discri111i11ation.
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7713-14
of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.94 of the Assam High Court
in W.A. No. 30 and 31 of 1993.
E P.P. Rao, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, and Decpak Dewan, for the Appel-
lant.
L.K. Paonam and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents.
Ms. S. Janani for State.
F
B.B. Sawlmey and Rishi Kesh for the Respondents.
The fol1owing Order of the Court \Vas delivered :
Leave granted.
G These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Gauhati made on August 2, 1994 in W.A. Nos.
30 and 31 of 1993. This Court on February 9, 1996 noticed the contention
raised by Shri Rao that the Principals in the private colleges taken over by
the Government, were not required to put in minimum length of service as
H lecturer, while the lecturer in Government college, to become principal is
592
ALL MANIPUR GOVT. COLLEGES TEACHERS ASSN. v. ALL MAN IP UR COLLEGE TEACHERS ASSN. 593
required to out in three years' service, as initial period, to become lecturer A
and 10 years' service thereafter as a lecturer. The Government in G.O. No.
9 dated 11.4.1994, while exercising the power under Article 309 of the
Constitution, issued the orders w.e.f. the date of the application indicating
that the past service rendered by the employees of the Government col-
leges in Government aided/private educational institutions which were
subsequently taken over by the State Government on or before December
B
20, 1979 shall be counted as experience of service required for promotion
or direct recruitment, as the case may be, provided that there were no
interruption in between. Based thereon, it was contended that since the
Principals who worked in the private colleges were appointed directly or
promoted as principals without insisting upon the minimum 10 years' c
service, they would always steal a march over Government lecturers to
become Principals and also as Directors in the higher ladder of services
and that the discrimination would always loom large as against Government
Lecturers/Principals since the Principals of the private colleges would
remain to be seniors to the Principals in the Government colleges. Since D
the learned counsel appearing for the State did not have instructions, she
had sought fur and was granted ti1ne. The governn1cnt have now explained
in their orders that they are insisting upon the private lecturers 10 years'
service as Principal for promotion as Director and that, therefore, the
seniority is being counted after computing minimum 10 years' service as
lecturer/principal, as the case may be, to the post of Directors. If, as ·a E
consequence of such computation, they become seniors, the inevitable
would follow and no discrimination can be imputed that account. It is also
made clear by the Government that they are maintaining two separate
seniority lists, one of the Government teachers and the other the
teachers/Principals working in the taken-over colleges, as another list. It is F
made clear that the above order would be applicable only in respect of the
teachers of the taken-over colleges as indicated in the rule itself.
The appeals ar.e disposed of accordingly. No. costs.
G.N. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.