Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors v. Paramjeet Kaur Dhillon

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Reserved On:14^^ lulv, 2010 ludament Delivered On:6^^ Auoust 2010 +

W.P.(C) 13238/2009 GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advs. Versus PARAMJEET KAUR DHILLON Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. For orders, see W.P.{C) No.10640/2009. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE AUGUST 06, 2010 mm G) A A (MOOL GE W.P.(C) No.13238/2009 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % fudament Reserved On: 14^^ tulv, 2010 ludament Delivered On:6^^ August 2010 + W.P.(C) 10640/2009 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner Through: Ivir.V.K.Tandon, ivis, Mamta Tandon, Advs. Versus SURESH CHAND VASHIST & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Mr. Piyush Gaur, Ms. Ruchika, Advs. W.P.(C) 1325/2010 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advs. Versus PARMANAND Respondent Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Mr. Piyush Gaur, Ms. Ruchika, Advs. W.P.(C) 1326/2010 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advs. Versus SMT.SWATANTRA NAYYAR Respondent Through: Nemo. W.P.(C) 1358/2010 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advs. W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters ^ a Versus SHEO RAJ SINGH Respondent Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Adv. W.P.(C) 1375/2010 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI • Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advs. Versus ASHOK KUMAR Respondent Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, Adv. W.P.(C) 1767/2010 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advs. Versus SHIV RAM SUMAN Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Adv. W.P.(C) 13199/2009 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Petitioners Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advs. Versus ASHOK KUMAR Respondent Through: Nemo. W.P.(C) 13200/2009 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Petitioners Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latii<a Chaudhary, Advs. • W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters Versus DHANESH KUMAR Respondent Through: Nemo. W.P.(C) 13213/2009 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Petitioners Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advs. Versus DRAUPADl Respondent Through: Nemo. W.P.(C) 13238/2009 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS Petitioner Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika Chaudhary/Advs. Versus PARAMJEET KAUR DHILLON Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANPRAIOG. I.

¶1On 23.12.1987, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "AlCTE Act") was enacted by the Parliament by virtue of its powers under Entry 66 of Union List wherein exclusive power Is vested with the Central Government with regard to technical education. The Preamble to AlCTE Act reads as under:- W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters M "An Act to provide for the establishnnent of an Ail India Council for Technical Education with a view to proper planning co-ordinated development of system throughout the country, promotion of qualitative improvement of such in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical system for matters connected therewith."

¶2Under Section of AlCTE Act, Central Government has the power to appoint a Council called All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AlCTE"). Relevant would it be to note that Section 10 of AlCTE Act enumerates the powers and functions of the Council reads as under:-"10, Functions of the Council -It shall be the duty of the Council to tal<e all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and maintenance of standards and for the purpose for performing its functions under this Act, the Council mav-

(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, collect data on all related matters make forecast of the needed growth and development in technical education;

(b) coordinate the development of technical in the country at all levels;

(c) allocate disburse out of the Fund of the Council such grants on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to-

(i) technical institutions,

(ii) Universities imparting in coordination with the Commission;

(d) promote innovations, research and development in established new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters developmental requirements for overall improvement of educational processes;

(e) formulate schemes for promoting for women, handicapped weaker sections of the society;

(f) promote an effective linl< between system other relevant systems including research development organisations, industry and the community;

(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for Universities imparting education, incorporation norms mechanisms for enforcing accountability;

(h) formulate schemes for the initial in-service training of teachers and identify institution or centres and set up new centres for offering staff development N programmes including continuing of teachers;

(i) lav down norms standards for courses, curricula, physical instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations;

(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition other fees;

(k) grant approvals for starting new for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with agencies concerned;

(1) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical conferring powers, rights privileges on it for promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of examinations awarding of membership certificates;

(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to institutions;

(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education; W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters

(o) provide guidelines for admission of studies to Universities imparting education; . (p) inspect or cause to inspect any institution;

(q) withhold or discontinue grants, in respect of courses, programmes to such which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council;

(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of Council's responsibilities to create positions of professional, supporting staff based on requirements; \

(s) declaretechnicalinstitutionsat various levels and types offering courses in technical fit to receive grants;

(t) advise the Commission for.declaring any institution imparting technical as a deemed University;

(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms standards specified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of the Institution or the programme;

(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed." (Emphasis Supplied)

¶3Consequent upon revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of 5^^ Central Pay Commission, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India issued orders dated

09.10.1998 and 14.09.1999 directing AlCTE to frame a scheme for revision of pay scales of teachers employed in Technical Institutions pursuant to which AlCTE framed such a; scheme. AlCTE issued notification dated 30.12.1999 relating to revision > W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters I of pay scales and service conditions of teachers, librarians physical personnel employed in diploma level Technical Institutions. The relevant portion of said notification reads as under:- "AICTE NOTIFICATION FOR REVISION OF PAY-SCALES AND ASSOCIATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF TEACHERS, LIBRARIANS AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL FOR DIPLOMA LEVEL TECHNCIAL INSTITUTIONS

1.0 PREAMBLE The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education has issued orders vide letter No.37-104/95-TS-ll, dated October 9, 1998 and of even No. dated January 14, 1999 implementing a scheme of revision of pay scales of teachers of degree level Technical Institutions, following revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Government orders require that AlCTE notify other terms and conditions of service of such teachers with the approval of Ministry of Human Resource Development. In line with the revised pay-scales of teachers of degree level technical and the associated service conditions, AlCTE has now revised pay-scales and associated service conditions of teachers, librarians and physical education personnel in diploma level institutions, with concurrence of Ministry of Human Resource Development. These revised pay scales and associated service conditions are given in this notification.

2.0 COVERAGE

2.1 Scope: The provisions-of this notification apply to teachers, librarians and physical personnel in diploma level institutions, covered under the AlCTE Act.

2.2 Date of Effect: W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters The revised pay-scales, Career Advancement Scheme and incentives for higher qualification given in this notification shall be effective from January 1, 1996. All other terms and conditions come into force with effect from date of this notification.

2.3 State Government Institutions Private Aided Institutions: Taking into account local conditions, a State Government may implement revised pav-scales from a date later than lanuarv 1, 1996 and/or implement pav-scales other than those given in this notification, but which are not higher than pav-scales given in Tables (Appendix A 1. 2 and 3), In such cases, the details of the modification proposed either to scales of pay or the date from which Scheme is to be implemented, should be furnished to All India Council for Technical Education for its approval.

4.0 PAY-SCALES The revised pay-scales for teachers of diploma level are given in Tables (Appendix A-1 and 2).

5.0 QUALIFICATIONS

¶1The prescribed minimum qualifications experience requirements for various teaching posts in diploma level are given (Appendix-B)

¶2Where qualifications and experience prescribed for a post in this pay revision are higher than the qualifications and experience prescribed by AlCTE for that post prior to this revision,

(i) revised qualifications experience will;: be required only for fresh appointees to that post and-will not be insisted on for existing incumbents working-on those positions.

(ii) for open selection to a higher cadre position through advertisement internal candidates presently ' working in a lower position will be exempted from the ' prescribed higher qualification and experience to the extent that they will be required to possess only the W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters / A qualifications experience prescribed by AlCTE prior to this pay revision. This relaxation will be available only for-a period of 5 years from the date of issue of this notification. Thereafter, internal candidates must also possess the qualifications experience prescribed in this notification.

¶3Teachers already in service prior to January 1, 1996 who at time of their recruitment possessed only a second class in their degree at Bachelor's level (but met all qualification requirements prescribed by AlCTE at the time of their recruitment) shall be exempted from the requirement of First Class for the degrees they had at the time of their recruitment.

12.0 SUPERANNUATION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT The age of superannuation of teachers in diploma level would be years thereafter no extension of.service shall be given The age of superannuation of Librarians, Physical Education Personnel such other employees of who are treated at par with the teachers and whose age of superannuation was 60 years, will now be 62 years TABLE A-1 SCALES OF PAY FOR TEACHERS FOR DIPLOMA LEVEL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS S. Category Existing Pay-Scales No. (Rs.)

¶1Lecturer 2200-75-2800-100-4000

2.

¶3Senior. Lecturer Head of . Deptt.

¶4Principal 3000-100-3500-125-5000 3700-125-4950-150-5700 4500-150-5700-200-6300 W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters Proposed Pay-Scales (Rs.) 8000-275-13500 10000-325-15200 12000-420-18300 16400-450-20000 9r i S. No Category

¶1Lecturer 2, Lecturer TABLE A-2 Existing Pay-Scales

(Rs) 3000-100-3500-125-5000 3700-125-4950-150-5700 Proposed Pay-Scales (Rs) 1000-325-15200 (Senior Scale) 12000-420-18300 (Selection Grade) The revised scales of pay for Librarians and Physical Education Personnel are given in Table A-3. TABLE A-3 SCALES OF PAY FOR LIBRARIANS AND PHYSICAL TRAINING INSTRUCTORS

(PEI) FOR DIPLOMA LEVEL TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS S. No Category

¶1Librarian/Lecturer Physical Training instructors (P.E.I.) Proposed Pay-Scales (Rs.) 8000-275-13500 Librarian (Senior 10000-325-15200 Scale)/Lecturer (Senior Scale)/Physical Education Instructor (Senior Scale) Librarian (Selection Grade)/Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Physical Education Instructor (Selection Grade) 12000-420-18300 " (Emphasis Supplied)

¶4Relevant would it be to note that the notification dated

30.12.1999 prescribed higher qualifications experience than previously required for appointment to various teaching posts in diploma level institutes but W.p.{C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters • correspondingly did not provide for any change in qualifications and experience required for appointment to the posts of librarians and physical training instructors in the said institutes. A period of 5 years was granted to the existing incumbents on the said posts to acquire revised qualifications and service experience.

¶5The matter regarding revision of pay scales of teachers, librarians physical personnel in diploma level as prescribed in notification dated 30.12.1999 Issued by AlCTE was submitted by Department of Training Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "DTTE") to the cabinet, government of National Capital Territory, Delhi for consideration. The relevant portion of the note submitted by DTTE to the cabinet dealing with revision of pay scales and age of superannuation of librarians and physical personnel in diploma level reads as under:- "5.3 PAY SCALES OF LIBRARIANS & PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL Besides the teachers, AlCTE has also recommended revised pay scales for Librarians Physical Education Personnel as under:- FOR COLLEGES

¶1Librarian/Directors, Rs.8,000-275-13500/- Physical Education

2.Librarian (Sr. Scale)/ Rs.10,000-325-15200/- Director, Physical Education (Sr. Scale)

3.Librarian (Selection Rsl2,000-420-18300/- Grade)/Director, W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters i Physical Education {Selection Gr.) FOR POLrTECHMICS

¶1Librarian/Physical Education instructor

2.Librarian (Sr. Scale)/ Physical Education (Sr. Scale)

3.Librarian (Selection Grade)/ Physical Education (Selection Gr. Rs.8,000-275-13500/-Rs.lO,000-325-15200/-Rsl2,000-420-18300/-

9.1 (viii) AICTTE recommendations on pay scales may be accepted for implementation for eligible categories of employees of Government Polytechnics implementation may be w.e.f

1.1.96. As in the case of colleges like Delhi College of Engineering, retirement age will continue to be years benefits under the Pay Commission over and above AlCTE/MHRD recommendations may not be available and will have to be adjusted.

11.0 As regards revised pay scales recommended by AlCTE for colleges and polytechnic Librarians Physical Education personnel, at present there is a post of Librarian in Delhi College of Engineering in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500 but in College of Pharmacy and College of Art the post of Librarian exists in a lower pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. Similarly, in polytechnics also the posts exist in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. In so far as Physical Education personnel are concerned there is a post of Director, Physical Education in Delhi College of ryO W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters I Engineering and College of Art in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500. There is no post of Director, Physical Education in College of Pharmacy but a post of PTI exists in pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. In Polytechnics there are posts of PTls. So, where the posts exist in lower pay scale the incumbents cannot be straightaway placed in revised pay scales as posts will have to be created in higher scales and eligibility of existing Librarians and PTls will have to be seen in terms of qualifications recommended by AlCTE for these posts. These issues need to be examined in consultation by the Finance Department separately before implementing the recommendations of AlCTE in their cases, it is, therefore, proposed that for these categories of employees-viz-Librarians PTls the implementation of AlCTE recommended pay scales may be carried out after the issue of qualifications upgradation of existing posts is settled in consultation with Finance Department and their cases examined separately in consultation with Finance Department,

14.1 As regards Librarians Physical Education Personnel, they are not being denied the benefit. It is only certain issues relating to upgradation of the existing posts educational qualifications that needs to be sorted out in consultation with Finance Department before their case can be considered for implementation of AlCTE pay scales" 6, Vide cabinet decision No.841 dated

23.09.2003, Government of NCT of Delhi approved the grant of revised pay scales to the teachers teaching in diploma level under DTTE. However, the cabinet did not take a decision with respect to revision of pay-scales of librarians physical personnel employed in under DTTE. The reason for the same is that in the notification dated

30.12.1999 AlCTE recommended scales of pay for lecturers, librarians and physical educational persons at par with same post holders in degree colleges, but enhance the requirement of a higher educational qualification only for W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters i ft lecturers and bring it'at par with lecturers in degree colleges but did not recommend similar enhancement in educational qualifications for librarians physical educational persons and the Government of NCT Delhi thought it not advisable to pay same scale of pay to those having higher qualifications and those with lesser qualifications.

¶7On

02.08.2004 DTTE issued letter NO.F.123/19/2000/TE/AD/1217 to AlCTE seeking clarifications regarding the revision of pay scales of librarians and physical training instructors. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:- "....AlCTE vide its notification IM0.1-65/CD/NCE/98-99 dated 20^'^' December, 1999 has given the pay scales Career Advancement scheme for Librarian Physical Training Instructors for Diploma Level Technical Institutions at table A-3. Kindly clarify whether these scales are linked with the qualifications of the Librarian and Physical Training Instructors or to be given to all irrespective of their qualifications. In case pay scales are linked with qualification, you are requested to convey qualifications for Librarians/Physical Training instructors attached to each grade as the same is not reflected in your notification "

¶8In response thereto, AlCTE issued letter No.2004-05/50 dated 23.08.2004 to DTTE, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- " The normal practice to give revised pay scales to existing faculty members (including Librarians/Physical Training Instructors) for the post they are holding at the time of revision of the pay scales i.e.

01.01.1996 in present cadre. The revised qualifications experience, if any, W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters I prescribed with the revised scales are to be 'made applicable for fresh recruitment only. The only consideration for giving the revised pay scales, to the existing faculty should be that the person concerned was appointed in the date of cadre prior to the date of revision i.e. 01.01.1996 "

¶9Vide cabinet decision No.l024 dated

16.12.2005, Government ."^of NCT of Delhi accepted the AlCTE's recommendation pertaining to enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for teachers of degree and diploma level under DTTE and further decided to not to extend said benefit to librarians physical training instructors at diploma level institutions.

¶10Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of Government of NCT of Delhi in respect of revision of pay-scales of librarians physical persons at diploma level under DTTE, a few librarians and physical training instructors working in various polytechnics under DTTE filed applications under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "CAT") inter-alia seeking issuance direction against the government to revise pay-scales of librarians physical instructors in polytechnics under DTTE in terms of the notification dated

30.12.1999 issued by AlCTE. The details of the applications filed before CAT are being noted herein under:-S. No. Number of Name of Details of • the applicant applicant application (OA No.) i. 2451/2006 Suresh Chander Librarian in Vashisht Kasturba Gandhi Polytechnic W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters i s [I. 2297/2006 Sheo Ram Suman III. 2298/2006 Parmanand IV. 2232/2006 Ashol< Kumar V. 2338/2006 Sheo Raj Singh V[. 2339/2006 Swatantra Nayyar VII. 2020/2008 Ashol< Kumar viii. 2021/2008 Draupadi IX. X. 2022/2008 Dhanesh Kumar 2023/2008 Paramjeet Kaur Dhiiion Librarian Parmanand institute of Business Studies Librarian in Parmanand institute of Business Studies Librarian in Parmanand institute of Business Studies Librarian in Parmanand institute of Business Studies Librarian in Parmanand Institute of Business Studies Physical Training Instructor in Arya Bhatt Polytechnic Physical Training instructor in GBP Polytechnic Physical Training Instructor in Guru Nanak Dev So Ed Polytechnic Physical Training Instructor in Meera Bai Polytechnic -

¶11A perusal of the pleadings filed by Government of NCT of Delhi before CAT reveals that stand taken by W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters I government was that since effect of AlCTE's recommendations was that the pay-scales of the librarians physical persons in diploma level were upgraded to the level of their counterparts in degree level it was necessary that the qualifications and service experience required for appointment in the cadre of librarians physical persons in diploma level should have also been upgraded in the same manner and that there is a fallacy in the recommendations of AlCTE inasmuch as AlCTE upgraded qualifications and service experience required for appointment for various teaching' posts in diploma level while revising pay-scales of teachers in diploma level technical but ignored said aspect of the matter while revising pay-scales of librarians and physical training instructors in diploma level institutions. Thus, the Government of NCT Delhi justified its decision to implement a different pay-scale for librarians physical persons in diploma institutes in Delhi.

¶12Before the aforesaid matters could be decided by the CAT, a significant development took place. In the year 2006, one Mr.K.R. Mann, who was working as a librarian in Arya Bhatt Polytechnic under DTTE of Government of NCT of Delhi filed an application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before CAT challenging the decision of Government of NCT of Delhi not to enhance age of superannuation of librarians in polytechnics under DTTE of Government of NCT of Delhi from to 62 years in terms of notification dated

30.12.1999 issued by AlCTE. In the said proceedings the stand taken by the Government of NCT Delhi was two-fold: - (i) notification - dated

30.12.1999 issued by AlCTE is W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters i •i recommendatory and not mandatory in nature;

(ii) though in notification dated

30.12.1999 recommendation has been made for enhancement of age of superannuation of librarians physical training instructors in diploma level institutions, who are at par with teachers from 60 to 62 years, the said notification nowhere states that librarians are to be treated at par with the teachers.

¶13Vide order dated 30.04.2007, CAT allowed the aforesaid application filed by Mr.K.R.Mann. It was held that the^ recommendations of AlCTE Contained in notification dated

30.12.1999 are mandatory in nature and that the expression "who are treated at par with teachers" occurring in paragraph

12.0 of the said notification includes librarians physical personnel treating them at par with teachers.

¶14Feeling aggrieved by afore-noted order dated

30.04.2007 passed by CAT, the Government of NCT of Delhi filed a petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6588/2008 in this Court challenging to aforesaid order, which petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

28.03.2008. After noticing decisions of Supreme Court reported as Unni Krishnan I.P. v State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645, Govt. of A.P. v I.B. Educational Society

(2005) SCC 212, lava Gol<ui Educational Trust v Commissioner Secretary to Govt. l-iiaher Education Deott Thiruvanthaouram AIR 2000 SC 1614 and State of Tamil Nadu v Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute

(1995) 4 SCC 104, this Court was of the view that the recommendations of AlCTE contained in the notification dated

30.12.1999 are mandatory in nature. The relevant observations of this Court are being extracted herein below:- W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters » "16 Therefore, the validity of the judgment of the Tribunal and outcome of this petition rests on the sole issue, namely, upon nature of the notification dated

30.12,1999 of the AICTE and that is whether it has the binding effect or every State Government or other authorities running such were given freedom to accept or not to accept the provisions of the said notification and had their own final say in the matter.

¶24A common thread, which is discernible from the aforesaid judgments is that in the matter of technical covered by the AICTE Act and to maintain uniformity, standards prescribed by Council established under this Act would prevail. This was necessary to have uniformity in the educational standards in so far as in this country is concerned. Once we accept this proposition, it would also follow that service conditions laid down by the AICTE would also have uniform application in all technical institutions. Once it is recognized that norms standards requirements of are to be uniform, this cannot be achieved in case the service conditions of employees working in these are also uniform. It would, therefore, logically follow that age of retirement, as recommended by the AICTE and duly accepted by the MHRD would be applicable to the librarians working in DTTE as well."

¶15Feeling aggrieved by afore-noted order dated

28.03.2008 passed by this Court, the Government of NCT of Delhi filed a petition under Article 136 of Constitution of India before Supreme Court, which petition was dismissed by Supreme Court in the following terms:- "The special leave petition is dismissed leaving open the question of law."

¶16Relying upon the decision of this Court dated 23.3.2008 in W.P.(C) No.6588/2008 titled 'Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi V K.R. Mann', vide order dated

23.05.2008 CAT W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters allowed application(s) before It holding that It was the b.ounden duty of Government of !\ICT of Delhi to revise pay scales of librarians In diploma level technical Institutes under DTTE, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in terms of recommendations of AICTE contained in the notification dated

30.12.1999 for the said recommendations were mandatory in nature. The CAT directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to grant pay scale Rs.8000-13500/- at the entry level; Rs.10000-15200 at senior scale level and Rs.12000-18300/- at selection grade level i.e. pay scales prescribed in the notification dated 30.12.1999 to the librarians in diploma level technical Institutions.

¶17Aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2008 passed by CAT, Government of NCT of Delhi filed appllcation(s) before CAT seeking review .of the said order, which application(s) were dismissed by CAT vide order dated 22.04.2009 for the reason that there was an Inordinate delay in filing said applicatlon(s) and that no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the government for the said delay.

¶18In view of the decision dated

23.3.2008 of this Court In W.P.(C) No.6588/2008 titled 'Chief Secretary. Govt. of NCT of Delhi V K.R. Mann' vide order dated 23.05.2008 and the order dated

23.05.2008 passed by CAT allowing the application(s) filed by the librarians vide order dated 14.05.2009 CAT allowed the appllcation(s) filed by the physical training instructors.

¶19Aggrieved by orders dated

23.05.2008

14.05.2009 by CAT allowing application(s) filed by the librarians physical training Instructors respectively, Government of NCT of Delhi has filed the above-captioned writ petitions challenging the said orders.

¶20During hearing of present petitions, following arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner:- W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters I AlCTE's recommendations contained in the notification dated

30.12.1999 are not mandatory in nature but are recommendatory. Counsel pointed out clauses

(a)-(k) of Section of AlCTE Act enumerates functions of AlCTE. Counsel argued that only such recommendation of AlCTE would be mandatory in nature which is issued by it in discharge of its functions prescribed under Section 10 of AlCTE Act. That AlCTE acts in advisory capacity while issuing recommendations on a matter not included under clauses

(a)-

(k) of Section 10 of AlCTE Act and thus such recommendations have no binding force. That since fixation of pay of staff of is not a function of AlCTE under Section 10 of AlCTE Act, recommendations issued by AlCTE in respect of said matter .are not mandatory but recommendatory in nature. With respect to the decision of this Court in K.R. Mann's case (supra), counsel submitted that the said decision is per incurian) as Section of AlCTE Act has not been examined therein. Counsel further submitted that since issue pertaining to nature of the recommendations of AlCTE was left open for adjudication by Supreme Court while dismissing the special leave petition filed by Government of NCT of Delhi against the decision of this Court in K.R. Mann's case (supra), said decision cannot be taken to be an authority for the proposition that recommendations of AlCTE contained in notification dated

30.12.1999 are mandatory in nature inasmuch as view of this Court on the said issue was not approved by Supreme Court. II Even if it is taken that recommendations of AlCTE contained in notification dated

30.12.1999 are mandatory in nature, paragraph

2.3 of the said notification extracted in para 3 above gives sufficient lee way to a state government to suitably modify said recommendations therefore W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters Government of NCT of Delhi was fully justified in seeking to make appropriate modifications in the said recommendations in respect of librarians physical personnel in diploma level technical under DTTE, Government of NCT of Delhi. Ill The modifications sought to be made by Government of NCT of Delhi in the recommendations of AlCTE contained in the notification dated

30.12.1999 are based on sound rationale and logic. Counsel argued that when scales of pay of librarians physical personnel of diploma level are sought to be upgraded it is most reasonable that qualifications service experience required for appointment in the cadre of librarian physical training instructor in diploma level technical be upgraded accordingly. To demonstrate reasonableness of decision of Government of NCT of Delhi to upgrade qualifications and service experience required for appointment to the cadre of librarian and physical personnel in diploma level technical while granting them benefit of higher scales of pay, counsel pointed out similar step has been taken by AlCTE in the matter of revision of pay scales of teachers in diploma level inasmuch as while recommending higher pay scales for teachers in-diploma level AlCTE has also recommended upgradation of qualifications and service experience required for appointment to various teaching posts in said institutions.

¶21Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that:- I The view taken by CAT that recommendations of AlCTE contained in the notification dated 30.12.1999 are mandatory in nature and thus it is the bounden duty of the Government of W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters I I NCT of Delhi to implement the pay scales prescribed in the said notification in respect of librarians and physical personnel in diploma ievel is perfectly legal. It was further submitted that when the stand taken by Government that said recommendations are recommendatory in nature already stood rejected by a Division Bench of this Court there was no occasion for the government to re-agitate the same argument in the present matters, ii As per the notification dated 30.12.1999 as aiso the view taken by this Court in K.R. Mann's case (supra), the librarians physical personnel in diploma ievel are to be treated "at par" with teachers. In the face of said factual position, the decision of the government,to accept the recommendations of AlCTE only qua teachers not in respect of librarians physical personnel is most arbitrary. Ill In the teeth of the direction issued by CAT to grant pay scales prescribed in the notification dated 30.12.1999 to the librarians physical training instructors in diploma level institutions, government was not justified In issuing office order dated 09.01.2009 which provided that pay scales in question would be granted to the librarians physical training instructors subject to their possessing revised qualifications and service experience required for appointment to the said posts. According to the counsel, aforesaid attempt of the government to modify the aforesaid direction of CAT particularly when the matter was sub-judice before this Court demonstrates that the decision of government to not to implement .the recommendations of AICTE in respect of librarians physical personnel in diploma level smacks of malafide. W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters f IV The stand taken by government to not to implement recommendations of AICTE in respect of librarians and physical personnel in diploma level technical is most untenable in view of the fact that many states and union territories namely Mizoram, Arunachal Paradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan have implemented the said recommendations in respect of librarians and physical personnel in diploma level technical Institutions.

¶22The primary question which has arisen for consideration in the instant matter is whether the recommendations of AICTE contained in the notification dated 30.12.1999 are mandatory or recommendatory in nature.

¶23We may not delve on said aspect of the matter for a Co ordinate Bench pf this Court has already taken a view that the said recommendations are mandatory in nature in K.R. Mann's case (supra). However, since great emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 10 of AICTE Act which prescribes the powers and functions of AICTE and holds the key to the answer to the aforesaid question has not been examined in K.R. Mann's case (supra), we proceed to examine the said aspect of the matter in the light of Section 10 of AICTE Act.

¶24It is an established proposition of law that where a specific power is conferred without prejudice to the generality of the general powers already specified, the specific power is only illustrative and does not in any way restricts the general power. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Om Prakash v Union of India

(1970) 3 SCC 942 and Aiav Canu y Union of India & Ors (1988) SCC 156). In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, a perusal of Section 10 of the AICTE Act reveals that the council is entrusted with the duty to ensure coordinated and integrated development of technical W.P.(C) No.10540/2009 &Connected Matters tyi/ I and maintenance of standards in technical institutes I and for which it may exercise various powers as per clause (a) to (u). As per clause (i) the counsel specifically empowered to lay down norms and standards pertaining to staff pattern, staff qualifications and quality instructions.

¶25As per clause (!) of Section 10 which provides that AICTE is empowered to 'lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculam, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment examinations' hence must include power to prescribe service conditions of staff of institutions. The expression 'staff pattern' occurring in clause (i) of Section 10 is wide enough to include within its ambit service conditions of staff of technical institutions.

¶26We may incidentally note that the Preamble to AICTE Act, contents whereof have been noted in above, as also decisions of Supreme Court reported as Govt of A.P. v I.B. Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 212, lava Gol<ul Educational Trust V Commissioner and Secretary to Govt Higher Education Deott Thiruvanthapuram AIR 2000 SC 1614 and State of Tamil Nadu V Adhivaman Educational & Research Institute

(1995) SCC 104 lay down that AICTE shall have primacy in the matter of technical in this country.

¶27It is thus apparent that AICTE is empowered to recommend pay of staff of technical institutions.

¶28The question ^arises whether the State Government can modify the recommendations of AICTE as per the notification dated 30.12.1999?

¶29A perusal of the notification, contents whereof have been noted in para 3 above, vide para 2.3 clearly show that while making the recommendations AICTE has left it to the State Government to implement the revised pay scales from a date W.p.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters . t. later than 1.1.1996 and even to implement different pay scales but with a rider that in such case the same should be furnished to the counsel for its approval.

¶30Thus, exercising its statutory power, AlCTE has not mandatorily directed the State Governments to implement its recommendations. The State Governments have been given the freedom to implement different pay scales, but with the approval of AlCTE.

¶31The obvious rationale behind aforesaid decision of the AlCTE is that ordinarily it should be expected that the State Governments should implement recommendations of AlCTE, but for valid reasons may chose not to do so, but the justifiability of the said reasons has to be made good to AlCTE, evidenced by tf?,e requirement that In such situation, approval from the council should be taken.

¶32What has happened in the instant case is that AlCTE has recommended pay scales for lecturers, librarians and physical persons in technical Institutes awarding diplomas at par with what is paid in institutes imparting in engineering for graduate courses, but with respect to lecturers has enhanced the educational qualifications at par with those required in regular engineering colleges, but has failed to upgrade qualifications for physical persons and librarians to bring them at par with engineering colleges for this reason the Government of NCT Delhi sought a clarification on the issue of the enhancement of educational qualification for said two category of posts when it wrote the letter dated

2.8.2004, to which the council gave a evasive reply vide its letter dated 23.7.2004. The result is that a stalemate has ensued.

¶33We see no reason why AlCTE could not be specific on the issue of educational qualifications as it did in the case of W.P.{C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters r m teachers by requiring teachers in technical to have same qualifications as required by teachers in engineering colleges.

¶34Thus, the Government of NCT Delhi has acted within the scope of its right as per the notification dated

30.12.1996, which vide para 2.3 left it to the discretion of the respective State Government to implement or not pay scales recommended by AlCTE and instead implement some other pay scale, but has fallen foul in not taking the prior approval of AlCTE, which council has also contributed to the mess by not according due consideration to the controversy arising out of AlCTE enhancing educational qualifications for teachers bringing the same at par with teachers in engineering colleges and simultaneojjsly requiring same scale of pay to be made applicable but qua librarians and physical persons recommending pay scale at par with corresponding posts in engineering colleges but without enhancing requisite educational qualifications by bringing the same at par with the posts in engineering colleges.

¶35Thus, inevitable conclusion has to be that impugned directions issued by the Tribunal in all the writ petitions are required to be quashed and as a consequence applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal being dismissed, but with a direction to the Government of NCT Delhi and AlCTE to resolve the deadlock.

¶36The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal which are the subject matter of challenge in all the writ petitions are quashed.

¶37Since Government of NCT Delhi is permitted to implement pay scales for the post of librarian physical persons in technical in Delhi other than those recommended by AlCTE, but subject to the approval of W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 & Connected Matters > k % /^, AiCTE, which has not been done we issue a direction requiring ,,AiCTE to decide specifically the issue of educational qualificationsrequired by the librariansand physical education personsin technicalinstitutesin Delhi and in what scale of pay they must -be put. A specific approval shall be granted by AICTE in clear language for the reason its notificationdated

30.12.1999,vide para 2.3 thereof casts an obligationon AICTE to consider for approval the pay scales to be applied if the State Government seeks not to implement the scales of pay recommended,by AICTE and this must of necessity require AiCTE to pass a specific order.

¶38No costs. AUGUST 06, 2010 mm W.P.(C) No.10640/2009 &Connected Matters (PRADEEP NANC'RAJOG) JUDGE AND V Page 28 of 2.8