Viju Abraham, J.

1. Since common questions arise for consideration in these Original Petitions, they are accordingly heard and decided together. O.P. (KAT) No. 317 of 2019 and O.P. (KAT) No. 300 of 2019 arise from a common order dated 31.07.2018 in O.A. (EKM) No. 814 of 2014 and O.A. (EKM) No. 833 of 2014, O.P. (KAT) No. 325 of 2019 arises from order dated 06.02.2019 in O.A. (EKM) No. 49 of 2019 and O.P. (KAT) No. 335 of 2019 arises from order dated 06.02.2019 in O.A. (EKM) No. 51 of 2019, all decided by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed in the O.A. It will be profitable to state the brief facts of each case dealt with in this judgment.

O.P. (KAT) No. 317 of 2019

Applicants are working as Assistant Professors of Mathematics in various Government Institutions (Govt. Colleges/Govt. Engineering Colleges/Govt. Polytechnic Colleges). They were appointed as lecturers (now re-designated as Assistant Professors) on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Before getting appointment as lecturer as above, all the applicants had prior service in equivalent posts/grades, qualified for being reckoned for the purpose of the grant of career advancement under the UGC scheme, the details of which are given below:

The details of prior service of the 1st applicant is evident from Annexures A6 and A7, of the 2nd applicant by Annexure A8, of the 3rd applicant by Annexure A9, and that of the 4th applicant by Annexure A10.

O.P. (KAT) No. 300 of 2019

The applicant is working as Asst. Professor in Mathematics in Govt. College, Chittoor. He was appointed as lecturer on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission and joined the service on 26.09.2001. Before the said appointment as lecturer, the applicant had prior service as lecturer in Mathematics at Sree Chitra Tirunal College of Engineering, Pappanamcode from 22.10.1996 to 25.09.2001 which is an equivalent post qualified for being reckoned for the purpose of the grant of career advancement under the UGC scheme, the details of which is evident from Annexure A2 and A3 certificates issued by the Sree Chitra Tirunal College of Engineering, Pappanamcode.

O.P. (KAT) No. 325 of 2019

The applicant is working as lecturer in Mathematics in Govt. Polytechnic College, Mattannur, Kannur District, having entered service on 28.02.2005. Before the said appointment as lecturer, the applicant had prior service as lecturer at College of Engineering, Thalassery under CAPE, Kerala from 14.08.2002 to 28.02.2005 which is an equivalent post qualified for being reckoned for the purpose of grant of career advancement under the UGC scheme, the details of which are evident from Exhibit R1(a) certificate dated 26.05.2007 issued by the College of Engineering, Thalassery.

O.P. (KAT) No. 335 of 2019

The applicant is working as lecturer in Mathematics in Govt. Polytechnic College, Mattannur, Kannur District, having entered service on 03.02.2005. Before such appointment as lecturer, the applicant had prior service as lecturer at College of Engineering, Trikkaripur under CAPE, Kerala from 14.08.2002 to 02.02.2005 which is an equivalent post qualified for being reckoned for the purpose of grant of career advancement under the UGC scheme, the details of which is evident from Exhibit R1(a) experience certificate dated 21.12.2012 issued by College of Engineering, Trikkaripur.

2. The applicants are all Asst. Professors in Government Colleges who are aggrieved by the non-consideration of their prior service in the same cadre in the Government controlled self -financing colleges for placement under the Career Advancement Scheme as per the UGC Scheme.

3. The Government issued Annexure A1 order G.O. (P) No. 171/99 dated 21.12.1999 by which the UGC Scheme including revision of scale of pay of teachers in Universities, affiliated colleges, Engineering Colleges, etc., was brought into force w.e.f., 01.01.1996. Paragraph 4.1 of Annexure A1 says that the revised UGC Scheme 1998 will be implemented in the State with effect from 1.1.1996. Paragraph 5.1 of Annexure A1 deals with scale of pay. Paragraph 6.20 deals with Career Advancement, which reads as follows:

"6.20 CAREER ADVANCEMENT:

Minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) would be four years for those with PhD, five years for those with MPhil and six years for others at the level of Lecturer and for eligibility to move into the Grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade/Reader, the minimum length of service as Lecturer (Senior Scale) will be uniformly five years."

Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7. of Annexure A1 deal with counting of past service for the purpose of placement of Lecturers in Senior Scale/Selection Grade, which read as follows:

"7.1 COUNTING of PAST SERVICE

Previous service, without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent, in a University, college, national laboratory, or other scientific organisation, e.g. CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR and as a UGC Research Scientist, should be counted for placement of lecturer in Senior Scale/Section Grade provided that:

7.2 The post was in an equivalent grade/scale of Pay as the post of Lecturer,

7.3 The qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Lecturer,

7.4 The Candidates who apply for direct recruitment should apply through proper channel;

7.5 The concerned Lecturers possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for appointment as Lecturers;

7.6 The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Government/Central Government/Institution's regulations.

7.7 The appointment was not ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad-hoc service of more than one year duration can be counted provided-

(a) the ad hoc service was of more than one year duration;

(b) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and

(c) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc service, without any break."

4. The period of probation of all the applicants in the post of lecturer was declared on satisfactory completion of the same and therefore on the basis of Annexure A1 the applicants became eligible for placement in the Senior Scale. The applicants in O.P. (KAT) No. 317 of 2019 became eligible for placement in Senior Scale on 01.09.2005, 13.07.2005, 01.01.2009 and 07.01.2009 respectively. The application submitted by applicants 1, 3 and 4 for placement in Senior Scale is not yet considered whereas the application submitted by the 2nd applicant was returned back for the reason that prior service in self-financing colleges cannot be considered for giving her placement in the Senior Scale. The applicant in O.P.(KAT) No. 300 of 2019 became eligible for placement in the Senior Scale on 26.09.2003 but was granted only w.e.f. 26.09.2007. The applicant in O.P.(KAT) No. 325 of 2019 became eligible for placement in Senior Scale on 14.08.2008 but her request for grant of the same is not considered yet. The applicant in OP KAT No. 335 of 2019 became eligible for placement in Senior Scale on 14.08.2008 but the same was rejected holding that the prior service in a self-financing college cannot be taken into consideration for the grant of placement under the UGC Scheme.

5. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Applications declaring that the prior service rendered by them could be reckoned as eligible service for being considered for career advancement promotion and directed the respondents therein to issue consequential orders granting the benefit of placement. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the respondent Government has preferred the present O.P.(KAT)s.

6. The main contention taken in these Original Petitions is that the Tribunal went wrong in directing the Government to count the prior service of the applicants in self-financing institutions for computing the requisite period of service for placement in Senior Scale as per the UGC Scheme, as the Government and Universities have no administrative financial control over the unaided institutions/self-financing institutions and therefore service rendered therein cannot be treated as regular service. Even though certain self-financing engineering colleges were set up under various departments or agencies of Government as Government-run colleges, they are not paid salary from the State exchequer and the selection of candidates for the said appointment is not made in strict compliance with the norms set by the Universities, Government or the UGC. There is no enabling provision to count the service in the self-financing colleges and therefore the same cannot be tagged on with the State Service.

7. In answer to the said contention, the applicants who are respondents in these original petitions contended that the prior service of the applicants was as Assistant Professors in Government Controlled self-financing colleges and they satisfy the six conditions stipulated in Clause 7 of Annexure A1 Government Order, G.O.(P) No. 171/99/HEdn. dated 21.12.1999. On the strength of the same, it is contended that the applicants possessed the qualifications as prescribed by the UGC and their appointment was also in the prescribed manner as laid down by the institutions and therefore their prior service in self-financing engineering colleges ought to have been counted for placement in Senior Scale. It is also contended that the fact that the applicants had previous service in various Government controlled unaided Engineering Colleges run by Government agencies like KSRTC, CAPE, IHRD, and in aided colleges stand proved by Annexures A6 to A10 produced in O.P.(KAT) No. 317 of 2019, Annexures A2 and A3 produced in O.P.(KAT) No. 300 of 2019, Exhibit R1 (a) certificate produced in O.P.(KAT) No. 325 of 2019 and Exhibit R1 (a) certificate produced in O.P.(KAT) No. 335 of 2019.

8. The applicant/respondent in O.P.(KAT) No. 300 of 2019 further contended that there is discrimination in the matter of reckoning of prior service for placement in Senior Scale in as much as similarly situated persons have been granted the said benefits. One Jayaprasad P.N., Lecturer in Mathematics, Govt. College, Nattakom was placed in Senior Scale taking into account his prior service in CAPE as evident from Annexure A12. Likewise, One Shri. K.P. Jose, Lecturer in Mathematics, St. Peters College, Kolenchery was granted Senior Scale taking into account his prior service in Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, a self-financing institution, as is evident from Annexure A13 and A14 obtained as per the Right to Information Act. It is also contended that one Dr. P.S. Rajendran who was included in the same PSC Rank List for the year 2001 in which the applicant was also included and one Dr. Asokan K appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in Collegiate Education Department from PSC Rank List of 2004, was also favoured with the extension of similar benefits. Dr. P.S. Rajendran and Dr. Asokan K were members of the Selection Committee for placement of teachers at Government Colleges from Asst. Professor Stage III to Associate Professor (for the subject Mathematics) as is evident from Exhibit R1(b) order dated 02.11.2019. The said Dr. P.S. Rajendran was given placement in the Senior Scale w.e.f. 20.03.2003 taking into account his prior service as Lecturer in Mathematics under LBS Centre for Science and Technology as is evident from Exhibit R1(c). Likewise, Dr. Asokan K was also given placement as Selection Grade Lecturer with w.e.f. 21.10.2009 taking into account his prior service as lecturer in Mathematics under the Mahatma Gandhi University as is evident from Exhibit R1(d). The applicant also relies on Exhibit R1(e) Government Order, G.O.(MS) No. 204/2019/H.Edn dated 29.06.2019 whereby revised guidelines was issued for placement of faculties of Engineering Colleges (Government/Aided) under Carrer Advancement Scheme. The petitioner relies on Clause 3.1 of the said Government order which reads as follows:

"3. COUNTING of PAST SERVICES FOR PLACEMENT UNDER CAS

3.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Lecturer/Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or equivalent in a University, Government colleges/Aided Colleges (including leave vacancy)/Government controlled self-financing colleges, National Laboratories/defense organizations/other scientific/professional organizations controlled by the state government or central government such as the CSIR, ICAR, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT; etc. shall be counted for placement under CAS provided that:

(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the AICTE for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant professor (former lecturer), Associate Professor (former Assistant Professor) and Professor.

(c) The Assistant Professor, Associate professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the AICTE for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate professor and Professor, as the case may be.

(d) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government/concerned institutions, for such appointments.

(e) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration. Ad-hoc can be counted provided that:

i) The period of service was of more than one year duration.

ii) The incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted selection committee.

(f) Artificial break in service shall not be used to the prejudice of employee, appointed on permanent basis. The person appointed on permanent basis shall be given the benefit of entire service rendered by him/her with effect from the date of initial appointment (leave vacancy/temporary/contract/ad-hoc) notwithstanding the artificial break/breaks in service.

(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (Government/Aided Colleges/Government controlled self-financing colleges/public sector) for counting past services under this clause."

(underline supplied)

Going by the same it is contended that prior regular service in Government controlled self-financing colleges is also taken into consideration for placement of faculties under the Career Advancement Scheme. The applicant also relies on Annexure A16 proceedings No. EA4/7843/11/DTE dated 30.06.2011 of the Director of Technical Education whereby it was ordered that the teaching experience in Government-controlled Self-Financing Engineering colleges in the state (managed by IHRD, CAPE, LBS, KSRTC, CCE, etc.) and that in Government/Aided polytechnics will be reckoned as past qualifying service for fixation of Senior Scale. Clause 7 of Annexure A16 order reads as follows:

"7. As per the Screening Committee held on 23/6/2011, it was decided to reckon the teaching experience in the Government Controlled Self Financing Engineering Colleges in the State (managed by IHRD, CAPE, LBS, KSRTC, CCE, etc.) and that in Government/Aided Polytechniques, as past qualifying service for fixation of Senior Scale."

The applicant also relied on Annexure A15 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 33042 of 2017 dated 03.12.2008 in support of his contention. That was a case challenging the exclusion of past service of the petitioners in institutions, which are approved by AICTE but are outside the State, prior to their regular appointment in the University for placement under Career Advancement Scheme. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

"12. Obviously, the effect of clause (1) of paragraph 3.11 of Ext. P1 is that, period of service as Lecturer in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges in the State alone will be given credit for placing teachers in the Senior/Selection Grade. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, prior to their appointment into the service of the 2nd respondent, they had rendered service for varying periods, outside the State and that too in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges and Universities. Therefore, they were also Lecturers outside the State in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges and but for the restriction in 3.11(1) of Ext. P1, this period would have been reckoned. By confining the benefit of past service only to Lecturers in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges in the State what the first respondent has done is to classify Lecturers in the AICTE approved Engineering Colleges into two classes namely those who have rendered service within the State and those who have rendered service outside the State.

13. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, although classification is permissible what is impermissible is discrimination. In this case, a classification has been made and the Lecturers like the petitioners who had rendered service outside the State have been denied the benefit of counting their past service and in that sense, they have been discriminated. May be it was possible for the State to justify the same either on the basis of the quality of the service that they rendered outside the State or on the basis of the qualification of the lecturers or on the basis of financial constraints or on such other valid criteria. By the averments made in the writ petition, petitioners have prima facie shown that they are equally placed like the Lecturers rendering service in the AICTE approved Engineering colleges in the State. Once that initial burden is discharged, the burden of justifying the classification is on the State. In my view, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the State has not offered any justification for excluding the service rendered by the Lecturers in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges outside the State. What is the nexus between the classification and the object that is sought to be achieved is not forthcoming in the pleadings of the State. If that be so, I must hold that, the State has failed in justifying the classification that they have made in clause (1) of para 3.11 of Ext. P1. If that be so, the necessary conclusion that is possible is that clause(1) of para 3.11 of Ext. P1 excluding the previous service rendered by the Petitioners in the AICTE approved Engineering Colleges outside the State is a discriminatory provision.

Accordingly, clause(1) to the extent it restricts counting of previous service of Lecturers in AICTE approved Engineering Colleges within the State will stand set aside. As a necessary consequence, the benefits in terms of the provision shall be extended to the petitioners without further delay in the matter."

9. It is also contended on the strength of Annexure A25, Government order G.O. (MS) No. 125/99/H.Edn dated 07.10.1999, produced in O.P. (KAT) No. 317 of 2019, which adopted the revised guidelines issued by the UGC in the matter of grant of senior scale/selection grade to the teachers in colleges/universities which clearly permitted counting of previous service for the purpose of senior scale/selection grade for the purpose of counting the qualifying service for placement. The relevant portion of the said Government order reads as follows:

"In the D O letter read as first paper the Secretary, University Grants Commission had conveyed the decision of the commission regarding counting of the experience of a person, before appointment as lecturer in the University/College, and rendered in equivalent grade in other University/colleges and other National Laboratories or R & D organization (CSIR/ICAR, DRDO, UGC, etc.) as qualifying service for placement in the senior scale/selection grade.

2. The commission in consultation with the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) reconsidered the matters and resolved revised guidelines as follows for counting of the previous service for purposes of Senior scale/Selection grade under the career advancement scheme for lecturers and requested to bring the above decision to the notice of the colleges under the jurisdiction of the state.

(1) Previous service without any break as lecturer or equivalent in a University, College, National laboratory or other scientific organizations (CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC etc.) and as a University Grants Commission Research Scientist should be counted for placement of lecturers in Senior scale/selection grade provided that:

(a) the post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of a lecturer;

(b) the qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by University Grants Commission for the post of Lecturer

(c) the lecturers concerned possessed the minimum qualification prescribed by University Grants Commission for appointment as lecturers;

(d) the post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/state Govt.

(e) the appointment was not ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration.

2. No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Govt.) if the above criteria are satisfied.

3. The Govt. have considered the above decision of the University Grants Commission and are pleased to approve the University Grants Commission guidelines for counting of previous service for the purpose of senior scale/selection grade to the teachers in colleges/Universities in the state with the condition that tile (sic) service outside the state would count only for national (sic) fixation benefits and the teachers would not be eligible for any arrears."

(underline supplied)

In Clause 2 of Annexure A25 Government Order, it is specifically mandated that no distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government) if all other criteria are satisfied. Thus on the basis of the same it is contended that there is no justification in not counting their prior service for placement.

10. The applicants also contended relying on Exhibit R1(b) Government Order, G.O. (Rt) No. 1631/2019/H.Edn dated 06.09.2019 produced in O.P. (KAT) No. 325 of 2019 that the prior service rendered by them should be counted for the purpose of placement under the UGC Scheme as in the case of a similarly situated employee, i.e., one Babu Ajayakumar, whose 3 years of service in Kerala Law Academy Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, a private self-financing college was counted for calculating qualifying service as per UGC regulation for placement.

11. The applicants also relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Jomy John (judgment dated 20.01.2021 in O.P. (KAT) No. 20 of 2021) reported in LAWS (KER) 2021 (1) 191, which considered G.O.(MS) No. 125 of 1999/H.Edn dated 07.10.1999 (Annexure A25 in O.P.(KAT) No. 317 of 2019) and G.O.(P) No. 171/1999/H.Edn dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure A1 in O.P.(KAT) No. 300 of 2019) and held that prior service of the applicant therein in the post of lecturer in School of Technology and Applied Sciences which is a self financing autonomous department/school functioning under Mahatma Gandhi University prior to her appointment to the post of lecturer in Computer Science the Collegiate Education Department should be counted for the purpose of conferment and placement as Senior Scale Assistant Professor in the Collegiate Education Department as per the UGC Scheme.

12. We have heard Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the petitioners and also Sri. V. Varghese, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in all these cases.

13. Admittedly all applicants have prior service either in aided or in self-financing colleges controlled by the State Government. Further that the prior service rendered by them qualifies the conditions laid down in paragraph 7 of Annexure A1 Government Order dated 21.12.1999. Further, Annexure A25 Government Order dated 07.10.1999 in the matter of grant of higher grade to lecturers in Colleges/Universities, issued revised guidelines in the matter of reckoning of previous service which specifically mandated that no distinction should be made with reference to nature of management of the institution where the previous service was rendered (Private/Local Body/Government). This Court in Jomy John's case supra relying on the above said two Government orders held that so long as the eligibility condition stipulated in Annexure A1 and Annexure A25 Government Orders are fulfilled, then the incumbent is eligible for conferment of placement as Senior Scale Asst. Professor in accordance with those norms. It is also relevant to note that in Annexure A15 judgment of this court in W.P.(C) No. 33042 of 2017, wherein exclusion of past service of the incumbent in institutions outside the State for placement under the Career Advancement Scheme was set aside holding that such classification is not reasonable and there is no nexus between the classification and the objects sought to be achieved. Further, as per Exhibit R1(e) Government Order, G.O.(MS) No. 204/2019/H.Edn dated 29.06.2019 revised guidelines for placement of faculties of Engineering Colleges (Government/Aided) under Career Advancement Scheme were issued in which past service in aided colleges, as well as self-financing colleges, was also eligible to be reckoned for calculating qualifying service for placement under Career Advancement Scheme and that no distinction should be made with reference to nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (Government/Aided Colleges/Government controlled self-financing colleges/public sector) for counting past services. Further, it is also pertinent to note that by a subsequent proceeding evidenced by Annexure A16 Order No. EA4/7843/11/DTE dated 30.06.2011 of the Director of Technical Education it was ordered that the teaching experience in Government-controlled self-financing engineering colleges in the state (managed by IHRD, CAPE, LBS, KSRTC, CCE, etc.) and that in Government/Aided polytechnics will be reckoned as past qualifying service for fixation of Senior Scale. The objection taken by the Government that since prior service of the applicants are in institutions where the Government or the University has no supervisory or financial control is also devoid of any merit, in as much as the prior service of the applicants were in institutions which are managed by a committee which consists of Government officials and the Government has over all control over them. Further, it is also to be noted that even in Annexure A1 Government Order or the UGC Scheme dated 23.09.2009 produced as Annexure A21 in O.P.(KAT) No. 317 of 2019, no differentiation is made between the Government/Aided/University/Unaided/Self-financing colleges, etc. for the purpose of reckoning the prior service for placement benefit as per the UGC Scheme.

14. As regards the norms in Ext-R-1 (e) G.O.(Ms). No. 204/2019/H.Edn. dated 29.6.2019, it has to be noted that the said GO has been issued subsequently on 29.6.2019 much after the issuance of the basic norms, as per Anx. A-1 G.O.(P). No. 179/99 dated 21.12.2019, etc. Further, as per G.O.(Ms). No. 125/99/H.Edn. dated 7.10.1999 issued by the State Government in the Higher Education Department, the following conditions have been stipulated in para 2 thereof, which read as follows:

"2. The Commission in consultation with the Ministry of human Resources Development (Department of Education) reconsidered the matters and resolved revised guidelines as follows for counting of the previous service for purposes of senior scale/selection grade under the career advancement scheme for Lecturers and requested to bring the above decision to the notice of the college under the jurisdiction of the State.

(1) Previous service without any break as Lecturer or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratory or other scientific organisations (CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC etc.) and as a University Grants Commission Research Scientist should be counted for placement of Lecturers in Senior scale/Selection Grade provided that:-

a) the post was in an equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of a lecturer;

b) the qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by University Grants Commission for the post of Lecturer;

c) the Lecturers concerned possessed the minimum qualification prescribed by University Grants Commission for appointment as Lecturers;

d) the post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Govt.;

e) the appointment was not ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration.

(2) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (Private/local body/Govt., if the above criteria are satisfied."

Clause (2) of Para 2 of the said GO dated 7.10.1999 specifically mandates that "no distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (Private/local body/Govt.), if the above criteria are satisfied". The effect of the said G.O. dated 7.10.1999 and the other G.O.. dated 21.12.1999 has been considered in detail in the judgment dated 20.1.2021 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in O.P(KAT) No. 20/2021 in a similar case. Mention has already been made about the said judgment of this Court in O.P(KAT) No. 20/2021 in para 11 of the judgment. Further, the rights of the present applicants are to be determined on the basis of such G.Os. like G.O.(Ms). dated 7.10.1999, G.O(P). dated 21.12.1999, which were in vogue, when they had made the claims in question. Such rights of the applicants cannot be curtailed or taken away on the basis of any subsequent Government orders.

15. However, even going by the terms and conditions of Ext. R-1(e) G.O.(Ms). No. 204/2919/H.Edn. dated 29.6.2019, as per clause 3.1 thereof, it has been inter alia stipulated that the prior regular service in Government controlled self financing colleges shall be counted for placement under the Career Advancement Scheme, etc. It has been admitted by the Government in para No. 6 of the affidavit dated 24.3.2021 in O.P(KAT) No. 300/2019 that the colleges mentioned in the present cases, i.e. IHRD, CAPE, SCTCE and LBS are established by either Government or Government controlled agencies and so they may be considered as Government controlled self financing colleges within the meaning of G.O(P). No. 204/2019/H.Edn. Dated 29.6.2019. Therefore, even going by the subsequently revised norms as per G.O(P). dated 29.6.2019, the prior institutions served by the applicants have to be treated as Government controlled self financing colleges within the meaning of G.O(P). dated 29.6.2019 and therefore they are entitled for the benefit in any view of the matter. However, it is also stated in the latter portion of para No. 6 of the affidavit dated 24.3.2021 filed by the Government in O.P(KAT) No. 300 of 2019 that Government is also in the process of reconsidering the abovesaid GO regarding the reckoning of service rendered by self financing colleges for career advancement promotion in the Government colleges and that the Government needs further time to take a decision by three months, etc. Taking note of the said aspects, the counsel for the original applicant/contesting respondent No. 1 in O.P(KAT) No. 300/2019 had earlier pointed out that in view of the said ambiguity in the stand of the Government for reconsidering the above G.O. dated 29.6.2019, this Court may direct the Government to not, in any manner, rescind or revise Ext. R-1(e) G.O.

16. To the above, the learned Senior Govt. Pleader had then submitted on the basis of the instructions that the said apprehension raised by the contesting respondent in the OP may not be well founded. Hence we recorded the said stand on behalf of the competent authority of the State Government, as per order dated 25.3.2021. However, we make it clear that any revision of the stand of the Government in Ext. R-1(e) G.O(P). dated 29.6.2019 shall not in any manner detrimentally affect the rights and claims of the present original applicants.

17. The stand taken by the Government in the affidavit dated 24.03.2021 in O.P.(KAT) No. 300 of 2019 is also very relevant for deciding the issue involved in the matter. Paragraph 6 of the said affidavit reads as follows:

"6. Also the term 'Government controlled self-financing colleges' mentioned in clause 3.1 of G.O.(Ms) No. 204/2019/HEdn dated 29.06.2019 is not seen defined. As the colleges mentioned in the present cases, i.e. IHRD, CAPE, SCTCE and LBS are established by either Government or Government controlled agencies, they may be considered as Government controlled Self Financing Colleges within the meaning of G.O.(P) No. 204/2019/HEdn dated 29.06.2019. Also Government is in the process of reconsidering the abovesaid G.O. regarding reckoning of service rendered in Self Financing Colleges for Career Advancement Promotion in Government Colleges. As Model Code of Conduct is in place currently and the Government needs time to take a final decision and seeks 3 months time for a decision in the matter."

(underline supplied)

Therefore, we find no justification for not reckoning the prior service rendered by the applicants before they entered into the Collegiate Education Service.

18. Yet another aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is the allegation of discrimination meted out to the applicants in the matter of reckoning of prior service for placement in the Senior Scale. The applicants relied on Annexures A12, A13, A14, R1(c) and R1(d) produced along with OP KAT No. 300 of 2019 and Exhibit R1(b) Government Order dated 06.09.2019 produced in O.P. (KAT) No. 325 of 2019 to contend that similarly placed employees like the applicants were granted placement under the UGC Scheme by reckoning their earlier service in similar self-financing institutions. In view of the fact that the benefit of placement under the UGC Scheme has been extended to similarly situated employees like the applicants, it is only to be held that they have been discriminated in the matter of granting the benefit of placement under the UGC Scheme by reckoning their earlier service in aided and self-financing institutions.

19. The Tribunal on consideration of the rival contention of the parties entered a finding that the previous service rendered by the applicants in various Government controlled self-financing colleges will come within the parameters laid down in Clause 7.1 of Annexure A1 Government Order, G.O.(P) No. 171/99/HEdn. dated 21.12.1999 and the same will qualify for being reckoned for grant of placement under the Career Advancement Scheme. We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the well-considered decision of the Tribunal impugned in these Original Petitions.

20. Taking into consideration the fact that the time limit fixed by the Tribunal for compliance has already expired, it is ordered that the time limit for compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in these Original Applications, will stand extended by a further period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

With these observations and directions, the above Original Petitions will stand dismissed.