DR. BHANU PRAKASH SINGH AND ORS.versusTHE HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

A                DR. BHANU PRAKASH SINGH AND ORS.
                                v.
               THE HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

                                  AUGUST 17, 1994

B                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.J

            Se1Vice Law-Harya11a and Punjab Agriculture University Act, 1970-
     Statute 21 (3) and Statute 16( llf-Lecturers permitted to undergo Ph.D.
     Course as in-se1Vice ca11didate accordi11g to leave of kind due to thenr-En-
C    titlement to drdw salary a11d full allowances duri11g that period-Applicability
     of Statute 21 (3).

            The appellants while working as Lectures in Haryana Agricultural
      University were selected to undergo PH.D. Course in the year 1978. They
      were pennilled as in service candidates to undergo the course according
D     to the leave of the kind due to them. They pursued the course of study upto
     ·1980-81. They were not paid the leave salary, and therefore, they filed the
      Writ Petition. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition
      holding that during the relevant period due to financial stringency !he
      University had prohibited the in-service candidates to pursue their course
E     of study as they were not in a position to pay the full pay etc. to them.
      Thereafter, this condition was withdrawn on January 10, 1979. Since the
      appellants had joined during the period of prohibition, they were not
      eliglbleto gel their full pay except in :iccordance with the leave of the kind
      due to them.                                      ·

F           In appeal before this Court, appellants have contended that by
     operation of Statute 21 (3), they are entitle to full pay and allowances. It
     is further contended that after the prohibition from 10.01.1979, the Univer-
     sity had paid full pay to the teachers permitted to undergo the Ph.D.
     Course and therefore, non payment to the appellants constitute dis·
G    crimination offending Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

           Dismissing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : 1.1. When the appellants were permitted to undergo the
     course of study according to the leave of the kind due to them, then they
·H   cannot have any right higher than what they were permitted to avail of. By
                                        712
            B.P.SINGH(D.R.)v. HARYANAAGRI. UNIVERSITY                     713

virtue thereof, they are not eligible to draw the salary and full allowances A
during the period from 1978-79 upto 1980·81 during which period they
have undergone the course of study. (715-B)

      1.2. The Statute 21 (3) provides the eligibility to seek admission and
on making such an admission they become eligible for full salary and
allowances but it would be subject to the conditions that may be imposed         B
by the University. Statute 16 (11) is inapplicable to the facts in the instant
case. It has no relation to the payment of full salary and allowances when
the teachers were admitted to undergo the course of Ph.D. [715-E)

       1.3. Art. 14 has no application to the facts in the instant case. After   C
the lifting of the prohibition on January 10, 1979, teachers sent thereafter
were paid full salary and allowances. A few teachers who were found to be
ineligible and were selected alongwith the appellants but were not admitted
to the course of study in the latter years had been paid the full salary and
allowances. It is not the case of the appellants that any one of the teachers,
though were prohibited to draw the full salary and allowances except in          D
accordance with the leave of the kind due to them were made payment of
the full salary and allowances. They are. not entitled to salary and allowan·
ces though other teachers after lifting the prohibition, were permitted to
ubdergo the course of study with full pay and allowances. Under these
circunistances, there is no invidious discrimination or arbitrary or unjust      E
action violating equality enshrined in, Art. 14. (715-F .ff, 716-A]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3108 of
1983.

     From the Judgment and•order dated 10.5.1982 of the Punjab &                 F
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 702 of 1980.

        Govind Mukhoty, Mahabir Singh and S.Srinivasan for the Appellants.

        S.M. Ashri for the Respondent.
                                                                                 G
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      The 28 appellants while working as Lecturers in Haryana Agriculture
University were selected to undergo Ph.D. Course in the year 1978. They
joined in July and November, 1978. They were permitted as in-service
candidates to undergo the course according to the leave of the Kind due H
    714                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to them. They pursued the course of study upto 1980-81. They were not
    paid the leave salary and that, therefore, they filed the Civil Writ petition
    no. 702 of 1980. The Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab &
    Haryana by its order dated May 10, 1992 dismissed the writ petition
    holding that during the relevant period due to financial stringency the
B · University had prohibited the in-service candidates to pursue their course
    of study and they are not in a position to pay the full pay etc. to them.
    Thereafter, the said conditions was withdrawn on January 10, 1979. Since
    the appellants had joined during the period of prohibition, they are not
    eligible to get their full pay except in accordance with ·the leave of the kind
    due to them.
c
             2. Shri Govind Mukhoty, the learned senior counsel for the appel-
     lants had contended that statute 21(3) of the Haryana & Punjab Agricul-
     ture University Act, 1970 Act No. 16 of 1970 entitles the in-service
     candidates who have been granted admission to undergo higher course of
D    study in a specialised subject full pay and allowances on admission into the
     course. Under section 16(11) the salary and allowances payable to the
     teacher cannot be determined and with held by the Vice Chancellor except
     with the approval of the Board. Since no such approval was given, the
     prohibition made by the Vice Chancellor is without authority of law. By
     operation of Statute 21(3), they are entitled to full pay and allowances. It
E     is also further contended that after the prohibition from January 10, 1979,
      the University had paid full pay to the teachers permitted to undergo the
      Ph.D. Course. Non payment to the appellants constitute discrimination
      offending Art: 14. We find no force in the contention.

p          3. It is true that the appellants have b~en permitted to undergo Ph.D.
     Course as in-service candidates during the relevant period. The Vice
     Chancellor in his proceedings dated October 27, 1972 had stated that the
     director of research informed the Vice Chancellor that there are financial
     stringency for. admission of the teacher to Ph.D. programme and that,
     therefore, he requested not to recommend the candidates to undergo the
G    Ph.D. Course. The Vice Chancellor accepting the recommendation has
     ordered, "Deans/directors should please made sure that no in-service can-
     didates are recommended for admission to Ph.D. in any subject during the
     current year." It would appear that the same prohibition continue upto
     January 10, 1979, the date of which the prohibition was lifted as indicated·
H    hereinbefore. It is seen that the order which was produced before the High
           B.P. SINGH (D.R.) v. HARYANAAGRJ. UNIVERSITY                    715

Court and marked as annexure I permitting them to undergo the course of           A
_study clearly mentioned that they are entitled to the leave of the kind due
them. When the appellants were permitted to undergo the course of study
subject to the condition, then they cannot have any right higher than what
were permitted to avail of. It is not in dispute. that by virtue thereof, they
are not eligible to draw the salary and full allowances during the period         B
from 1978-79 upto 1980-81 during which period they have undergone the
course of study. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed in this Court
that after the relieving of the appellants to undergo the course of study,
they have employed new teachers in place of the appellants. No doubt, the
appellants sought to explain that some of the teachers appointed had not
worked during the full course or worked only a partial time as indicated          C
in the rejoinder•affidavit. But since the appellants have come forward only
in the rejoinder affidavit, the State had no opportunity to controvert it. It
is clear that the appellants having gone to the course of study for the
relevant period according to the leave of the kind due to them, they cannot
have higher right then what was permitted to avail of.                            D

      · 4. It is true that the Statute 21(3) provides the eligibility to seek
admission and on making such an admission they became eligible for full
salary and allowances but it would be subject to the conditions that may
be imposed by the University. Statute 16(11) is inapplicable to the facts in
this case. There in it would appear that in fixation or determination of the      E
salary and allowances, the Vice Chancellor has to discharge that function
with the approval of the Board. That would be relatable to the initial
fixation of the pay and allowances but it has not relation to the payment
of full salary and allowances when the teachers were admitted to undergo
the course of Ph.D. and that, therefore, the Statute 16(11) is inapplicable.      F

      5. Art. 14 also has no application to the facts in this case. It is seen
that after the lifting of the prohibition on January 10, 1979, teachers sent
thereafter were paid full salary and allowances. It is true that few teachers
who were found to be ineligible and were selected along with the appellants       G
but were not admitted to the course of study in the later year had been
paid the full salary and allowances. It is not the case of the appellants that
any one of the teachers though were prohibited to draw the full salary and
allowances except in accordance with the leave of the kind due to them,
were made payment of the full salary and allowances. They are not entitled        H
    716                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to salary' and allowances though other tf:achers after lifting the prohibition
    were permitted to undergo the course of study with full pay and allowances.
    Under th~se circumstances, there is not invidious discrimination or ar-
    bitrary or unjust action violating equality epshrined in Art. 14.

           6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without costs.,

    A.G.     ''                                              Appeal dismissed.


              '.\




               ''




                                                                                   /'