Home > Chandigarh > Degree > Chandigarh > Government College of Art
Government College of Art, Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Government College of Art, Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Address:Sector 10-C, UT
Chandigarh (District Chandigarh)
Chandigarh, IndiaPin Code : 160011
Government College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh is a recognised institute / college. Government College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh was established on / in 1951.
Principal of Government College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh is Mr Prakash Brahm 072-2740309, DS Kapoor, Manohar Lal, Surinder Singh Dahiya (Offg.) (Mobile 9417702244).
Government College of Art is situated in Chandigarh of Chandigarh state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Chandigarh comes under Chandigarh Tehsil, Chandigarh District.
email ID(s) is
Website of Government College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh is www.artcollegechandigarh.org.in.
Contact Details of Government College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh are : Telephone: +91-172-2744896, 2742873, 2744896, 2740309
Email ID: firstname.lastname@example.org
KS Sahi Chief Coordinator
Mobile no. +91-99888-22567
CoursesGovernment College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh runs course(s) in Degree stream(s).
Approval details: Government College of Art is affiliated with Panjab University, Chandigarh (Chandigarh)
Images / newspaper cuttings related to Government College of Art
Govt College of Art (Profile)
BFA Course (Admission Notice)
Result of Apptitude Test (News)
BFA and Special Diploma Courses (Admission Notice)
Steno typist (Job Vacancy)
Applied Art and Painting (Job Vacancy)
Brush with new talent (News)
BFA Course (Admission Notice)
Hostel Mess Contract (Tender)
BFA Course (Admission Notice)
BFA Result and Special Diploma Courses (Advertisement)
Assistant Professor on contract basis (Job Vacancy)
MFA in Applied art and Graphics etc (Admission Notice)
Steno Typist (Job Vacancy)
Annual Convocation 2012 (Convocation)
Setting up Archives (Advertisement)
BFA Course (Admission Notice)
Hostel Mess Contract (Tender)
Master in Fine Arts (Admission Notice)
Roll number roke toh jataya rosh (News)
Memorable day for prized art Students (News)
BFA Course (Admission Notice)
Diploma in BFA (Admission Notice)
Exams of students (Public Notice)
Hostel Mess (Tender)
Mess Contract (Tender)
Asstt Professor in History (Job Vacancy)
City art college student exhibits her art of living (News)
Students dharna for demands (News)
General Manpower Services (Tender)
Art students show dazzling display (News)
Bachelor of fine arts (Admission Notice)
MFA Course (Admission Notice)
Master in Fine Art (Admission Notice)
Master in Fine art (Admission Notice)
Merit list of Diploma course (Public Notice)
Staff Nurse required (Public Notice)
Media coverage of Government College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh, Chandigarh
Master of Fine Arts (MFA) students will be happier nowIn its diamond jubilee year, the Government College of Arts, Sector 10, could not have asked for a befitting gift from the UT Administration. For the UT Administration has after over seven years of dilly dallying has finally decided to clear the college premises of two sub-offices which were running from the college backyard.
Two office belonging to Haryana and Punjab government, a sub-office of Haryana DPR and Punjab Controller of Stores, respectively, were running from the building for years together. Not only the offices posed a threat to the students who would not venture in that section of the college but also hampered permanent affiliation to the MFA (Masters in Fine Arts) course being run in the college besides under graduate courses.
“Our MFA(Masters in Fine Arts) course would only get a provisional affiliation every year from the Panjab University for the want of adequate studios and classrooms for the students. More importantly, this section housing the offices was once design studio. But now, in the absence of enough studios, two classes were being held in a single classroom”, said D S Kapoor, principal, Government College of Arts, Sector 10.
With the UT Engineering departments deciding to relocate these offices in a new building constructed in Sector 29, the college is pinning its hopes for a permanent affiliation to the post graduate course and constructing more studios for the students. In fact, the UT Engineering department started working out on the proposal to relocate the two offices way back in 2003 when the UT Engineering department was headed by V K Bharadwaj. But the proposal could finally materialize now. The UT Engineering has finally set the deadline to March 31, 2011 to relocate the offices in new premises.
Punjab, Haryana run more offices from UT building
While the Government College of Arts, Sector 10, was lucky enough to be finally getting its premises vacated, there are many offices functioning from the UT buildings even after so many years and many of them are not even paying the rent to UT Administration for running their offices:-
* 30 Bays Building, Sector 17: Director, Industries, Punjab
* 30 Bays Building, Sector 17: Office of Cooperative Societies Punjab.
* 30 Bays Building, Sector 17: Sub-office of AG Punjab
* Old Building, Sector 19: Office of Haryana Chief Engineer.
* Old Building, Sector 19: Office of executive engineer (Capital project)-Division V
* Old Building, Sector 19: Public Health (Sub-Division)-I
* Engineering Department building: MC Division (I), (II)
06.07.2008 College of Art may not get affiliated to PU this year
The College of Art, Sector 10, which is seeking affiliation to the Panjab University (PU) this year, has little hopes to qualify as a three-member inspection committee on Saturday apparently found several discrepancies.
For the college, which needs affiliation from the Panjab University every year for its postgraduate course in Fine Arts, this could prove decisive.
What primarily scores against the college’s chances of affiliation is lack of proper faculty and poor state of infrastructure.
Sources said that when the College was inspected last year, the incharges were asked to advertise posts for hiring faculty members, a resource that the college was lacking acutely. A year later, the situation is no different with the shortage of faculty still persistent.
The other discrepancy spotted by the team, comprising dean of College Development Council and senate members, was the poor state of infrastructure. While some areas fall under the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Administration, little has been done to upgrade the existing infrastructure. Now the fate of the college rests in the hands of the committee’s report.
One of the senior members of the committee said: “The college had been given one year to check their discrepancies and take action against the same. Nothing concrete has been done and the present scenario is no different from the situation a year ago. The affiliation may not be renewed”.
Principal of the College Dr Archana Shastri, however, said: “There are no discrepancies as such and the College had been given certain recommendations last year. The major issue pertains to the faculty and also the adjacent building to the college had to be vacated which has yet not been done. We may get some time to follow the recommendations”. The affiliation is given on the basis of the report of the Inspection Committee and every year the College has to seek affiliation all over again.
Arts students up in arms against college mgmtCHANDIGARH: Around 20 pass out students of bachelor in fine arts (BFA), Government College for Arts-10, are up in arms against the college authorities for failing to begin the masters in fine arts (MFA) course till date.
Students claimed that even admission forms had not been made available by the college, due to which they feared losing a year in studies.
They claimed that they had approached the college authorities numerous times but in vain.
Narinderjeet Singh, who recently passed his BFA, said, "We approached the principal and head of department but they failed to provide a satisfactory reply." We don't have any idea when the admissions forms will be made available, he said.
Echoing a similar view, another pass out Charanjot said, "I along with 20 other students have been awaiting the forms since June. The authorities seem least bothered to address the issue."
Meanwhile, the students forwarded a request letter to the governor along with the home secretary and Panjab University vice-chancellor on Friday.
The students claimed that the authorities were reluctant to tell them the reason for the delay in admissions, putting their future at stake.
They also claimed that the authorities were planning to skip the present batch and start admissions after the 4th year bath of BFA commences.
"The college is planning to club us with students of BFA who will pass out in June 2010," mentions the letter.
Meanwhile, principal Manohar Lal said they were awaiting approval from the varsity authorities to start the course. He further said next year, the college would try to start the MFA course in July.
SUMANGAL ROY Versus U O I CWP 10319-CAT of 2001IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of Decision: 6.2.2007
Sumangal Roy ......Petitioner
Union of India and others ......Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Shri D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Gurpreet Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India, for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5.
Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10319-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 10852-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 11024-CAT of 2001; 11039-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 10320-CAT of 2001; CWP No. 10286 of
2001 and CWP No. 11978-CAT of 2004 filed by the 9 lecturers appointed on adhoc basis in the Government College of Arts, Chandigarh in the year 1989.
Though the challenge in each of the writ petition is to the separate order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh ( for short `the Tribunal'), but all orders are co-related, passed on the basis of one or the other case. Since the facts are identical, we dispose of all the writ petitions by a common order. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from Vide advertisement dated 5.8.1989 (Annexure P.3) posts of two lecturers in the pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- were advertised. The petitioner Sumangal Roy applied in response to such advertisement and was selected after interview by a duly constituted Selection Committee vide letter of
appointment dated 28.12.1989 (Annexure P.4).
At this stage, it may be noticed that the selections were made vide separate advertisements in respect of different seven posts existing in the College of Arts, whereas two posts were filled up on the basis of
requisition from the Employment Exchange but all the nine candidates were appointed on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
All the petitioners joined in the year 1989/90. In the letter of appointment given to the petitioner, it was
mentioned that the appointment is to the post of lecturer `Group-A' on adhoc basis. It was further contemplated that such appointment is for a period of six months or till the post is filled up on regular basis, through the Union Public Service Commission (for short `the UPSC'), whichever is earlier and service rendered on the said post would not be counted for regular appointment.
Earlier, the petitioner Sumangal Roy and six other adhoc lecturers invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short `the Act'), seeking regularization of their services. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal allowing the applicants to make a representation about their grievance and the same was directed to be disposed of within 30 days of receiving of representation.
Subsequently,three separate Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal. In the said applications, the applicants sought directions to the respondents to consider them for regularisation and pending consideration their claim for regularisation, a direction was sought to be issued to the respondents to permit the applicants to continue on the post of lecturer with
all consequential benefits. The said applications were disposed of by the Tribunal on 5.6.1991 vide order Annexure P.11, wherein relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents were directed to permit each of the applicants to continue in service till the vacancies in question are filled up on the basis of the recommendations of the UPSC.
Subsequently when the respondents inserted an advertisement (Annexure P.12) on 25.3.2000 to fill up the posts of lecturer in Government College of Arts, the petitioners again invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The said applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the Tribunal on different dates, which are subject matter of challenge in this group of cases.
Learned counsel counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that at the time of appointment of the petitioners in the year 1989-90, the statutory Rules, which were applicable in respect of advertisement were the Punjab Government College of Arts and Craft Service (Class-III) Recruitment Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `1975 Rules'). The post of lecturer in the Government College of Arts and Crafts Chandigarh is not required to be filled up on the basis of the consultation with the Public Service Commission, being Class-III Posts, in terms of the aforesaid Rules.
The entire controversy seems to have started with the issuance of the letter dated 1.10.1986 (Annexure P.8), wherein Ministry of Human Resource Development had communicated to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh
Administration, Chandigarh that the teaching faculty of College of Arts, Chandigarh, will consist of Principal and Lecturers and the posts of Lecturer carrying pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- have been classified as Group-A posts.
Though the advertisement (Annexure P.3) was issued after the aforesaid circular but the Rules, which were applicable on the aforesaid date were the 1975 Rules only. It was only on 25.11.1999 that the Chandigarh
Administration framed its own Rules i.e. Government college of Arts, Chandigarh Administration, Lecturer (Group-A) Rules, 1997. The said Rules have been appended with the writ petition as Annexure P.9. As per
the Rules framed in 1997, the post of lecturer is required to be filled in consultation with the UPSC.
The case of the petitioners is that the communication
Annexure P.8 dated 1.10.1986 classifying the post of lecturer as Group-A, will not override the statutory Rules applicable at the time when the petitioners were appointed as lecturers. Any Instructions, which are not in consonance with the Statutory Rules cannot be given effect to and, therefore, at the time of appointment of the petitioners, the post of Lecturer was Class-III post and that they have been appointed against such posts
after advertisement and by selection by the duly constituted Selection Committee.
The petitioners have placed reliance upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Gagon Inder Kaur and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others decided on 17.10.1995 (Annexure P.17).
In the said case, the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers (College Cadre) in the year 1985-86 on adhoc basis. At the time of appointment, the Rules
applicable were Punjab Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1937. The post of lecturer was a Class-III post and was not falling within the purview of Public Service Commission. The New Recruitment Rules in respect of
lecturers were notified on 21.2.1991. It was the case of the Administration that they are required to be appointed in consultation with the UPSC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the lecturers have been appointed on adhoc basis, but really it is an appointment on regular basis. It was held that since the Rules of 1937 were in force at the time of appointment,
therefore, consultation with the UPSC was not required for the post of lecturer. It was held to the following effect:-
“In view of the facts mentioned above, it appears that the appointment of the petitioners and other Lecturers in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, who were appointed on adhoc basis during the period 1977 till the publication of the 1990 Rules, though described as an adhoc appointment is really an appointment on regular basis made in accordance with the procedure that was required to be followed for making a regular appointment under the Punjab Rules of 1937 which were in force at that time. The said appointments have been described as being adhoc in nature on the erroneous impression that consultation with the U.P.S.C. was necessary after 1977 for making regular appointment on the post. Since the Punjab Rules of 1937 had continued in force, with UPSC was not required for the post of Lecturer which continued to be a Class-III post till the publications of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991. It is no doubt true that as a result of the retrospective effect given by Rule 1(iii) of the 1990 Rules Class II Status (Group-B) has been conferred on lecturers with effect from April 1, 1975 and as a result the post of Lecturer has to be treated as Class- II post with effect from April 1, 1975 and the said post has come under the purview of the UPSC by virtue of the
UPSC (Consultation) Regulations, 1958 which only
exclude Class III and IV posts from the purview of
UPSC. The said retrospective amendment cannot, in our opinion, have the effect of depriving the petitioners of their right of having been substantively appointed on the post of lecturer prior to the coming into force of the 1990 Rules on February, 21, 1991.
Since we are of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Lecturer was made under the Punjab Rules of 1937, which were in force at that time, and the said appointment, though described is being adhoc in nature was regular appointment (emphasis supplied), the petitioners and other lecturer similarly situated would not be effected by the retrospective effect given by Rules 1(iii) of the 1990 Rules so as to require the appointment of the petitioners to be regularised in consultation with the UPSC.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the appointment of the petitioners and other Lecturers similarly situated who were appointed prior to the publication of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991, though described as being adhoc in nature shall be treated as regular appointment and the said lecturers
shall be given the benefits accruing to them on that basis, we do not express any opinion as regards appointments on the post of Lecturers that were made after coming into force of the 1990 Rules on February 21, 1991. No costs.”
At this stage, it may be noticed that the Rules notified in
respect of the Lecturers, were given retrospective effect but the Rules notified in the year 1997 by the Chandigarh Administration by the Government College of Arts, do not contemplate any retrospective effect. It
has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the said order, many Lecturers appointed in the year 1985-86 have been conferred the status of regular employees. It is pointed out that in Sahib Singh and others v. U.T. of Chandigarh decided on 13.8.1984 (Annexure P.18), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the writ petition with the directions that the petitioners, who have been appointed on adhoc basis will continue on such post till the Government makes regular appointments on the basis of the recommendations of the UPSC but on the basis of the judgment in Dr. Gagon Inder Kaur's case (supra), the petitioners in Sahib Singh's case (supra), were also conferred with the status of regular employees vide order Annexure P.18/A.
The learned Tribunal distinguished the judgment in Dr. Gagon Inder Kaur's case (supra) in Sanjeev Soni's case, on the ground that the same is the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and that too in its peculiar facts. It was further found that the claim of the petitioner for regularization stood already declined in the case in Anita Gupta's case i.e.
order dated 5.6.1991 (Annexure P.11). It was further held that the application is barred by the principle of resjudicata as in the earlier application, the Tribunal has given a direction to allow the applicants to continue on the post till the vacancy is filled on the basis of the
recommendations of the UPSC. The said judgment has attained finality, therefore, the argument that the consultation with the UPSC is not required, has to be rejected as this aspect has to be deemed to have been covered under the judgment given in the earlier application i.e. order dated 5.6.1991 (Annexure P.11). The original applications of Ishwar Dayal and others and
that of Nirmal Parkash and another, were dismissed on the basis of the order passed in Sanjeev Soni's case. The learned Tribunal, however, in Sumangal Roy's case, apart from following its view in Sanjeev Soni's case, found that the post of lecturer in the Govt. College of Arts is a technical post and is governed by All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the
guidelines framed thereunder. However, in the aforesaid judgment, it was found that the finding has been recorded in Sanjeev Soni's case that the standard prescribed by the University Grants Commission for recruitment are not applicable in respect of appointment made by the Administration.
When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 4.12.2001, the Court passed the following order:-
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
The interim order is made absolute to last till the
final disposal of the writ petition.
The case may be listed for hearing in due course.
In the meanwhile, the Chandigarh Administration
may send a proposal to the concerned department of the Government of India and the Union Public Service
Commission for considering the cases of the petitioners
regularisation of service keeping in view the following
(i)The petitioners did possess the prescribed
qualifications at the time of their initial
(ii)They had been appointed after advertisement of
the posts and on all-India basis.
(iii)They were appointed on the recommendations
made by the Selection Committee constituted by
the Chandigarh Administration.
(iv)They have continuously served in the
Government College of Arts, Chandigarh
without any blemish.
(v)That, it took more than nine years to the
Chandigarh Administration, the Union Public
Service Commission and the Government of
India to finalise the recruitment rules.
On the receipt of the proposal from the Chandigarh
Administration, the issue of regularisation of the services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons may be considered in a joint meeting of the officers of the Government of India, Union Public Service Commission and Chandigarh Administration and appropriate decision may be taken by them for
regularisation of services by considering their service
record as one time measure.”
In pursuance of such directions of this Court, the matter was considered in the meeting chaired by Shri S.K. Srivastava, Additional Secretary to UPSC on 1.3.2003. The said meeting was attended by the representative of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of
India; Chandigarh Administration and the Department of Personnel Training, Govt. of India. The Department of Personnel and Training has given its comments that the said Department will have no objection if the UPSC/Joint Committee takes a decision to consider the regularisation of those 9 lecturers. However, the Committee recorded the following note:-
“5. Thereafter, the Committee considered the tabulated details of the 9 Lecturers (Annexure-II) indicating details of the educational qualifications etc.
held by petitioners as produced by the Chandigarh
Administration, in terms of the interim directions of the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated
4.12.2001. The committee observed as follows:-
(i) That all the nine Lecturers whose cases are under consideration for regularisation of their adhoc services possess the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer in the Chandigarh College of Art at the time of their initial appointment as per the then Recruitment Rules. They also have the essential educational qualifications as per new Recruitment Rules dated 26.11.1999.
(ii) That out of nine Lecturers, seven had been appointed through open advertisement on an All India basis but the remaining two Lecturers had been appointed not through open advertisement on an all-India basis but through sponsorship from the Employment Exchange.
(iii) That they were appointed on the recommendations made by the Selection Committee constituted by the Chandigarh Administration.
(iv) The Chandigarh Administration has certified that they have continuously served in the Govt. College of Art Chandigarh without any blemish.
(v) Regarding delay in notification of the Recruitment Rules, the Committee noted the M/o HRD (Administrative Ministry for the Chandigarh Administration) took more than 4 years for notification of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Lecturer in the Chandigarh Govt. College of Art, after approval by the UPSC.
6. In the aforementioned background, the Committee
took note of the following critical points for taking a
decision on the issue of regularisation:-
(a) DOPandT in their advice have observed that
the order of the Hon'ble High Court is not a firm
direction but is of an advisory nature and hence
by implication the Committee has to finally decide
on the issue of regularisation after taking into
account all connected issues.
(b) DOPandT in their advice have also referred to the Government policy as laid down in OM NO. 28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) dated 23.7.2001 which inter-alia reiterated their earlier guidelines that persons appointed on ad-hoc basis to a grade are to be replaced by persons approved for regular appointment as per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and in accordance with the prescribed procedure at the earliest possible. In no case, such an officer appointed on ad-hoc basis
should be regularised unless and until there are specific court directions to that effect and such matters have to be referred to the Department of Legal Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training.
(c) It was also noted that as a matter of policy and the uniform practices followed, UPSC does not regularise the ad-hoc services of officers appointed by different agencies of the Government unless there are clear directions from Hon'ble High Court/Central Administrative Tribunal to that effect. It was observed that the Chandigarh Administration has at no time consulted UPSC, a Constitutional Body set up for such purposes, whilst appointing the ad-hoc Lecturers which it was required to do so as per the Recruitment Rules. Such a disregard of the rules by various agencies of the Government would entail by passing of a Constitutional Authority like the Union Public Service Commission which has been set up for such purposes and would open a back door for ad-hoc recruitment without following proper procedures of consultation with the
(d) It was also observed that not all the 9 candidates were appointed through open advertisement.
7. The Committee further considered the question of
other similarly situated persons besides the petitioners as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Committee was finding it difficult to define the similarly placed persons and as such desired that in case Court directed
regularisation of such Lecturers, the same may be
limited to Lecturers of the Govt. College of Art, Chandigarh in the same grade and fulfilling the conditions at para 5 and on the basis of open
advertisement or else it will throw open the flood gates to various ad-hoc appointments which will compromise
the constitutional functioning of the Commission.
Keeping in view all these factors in mind, the Committee was of the considered view that the issue may be once again referred by the Chandigarh Administration and Ministry of HRD to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana bringing the same to their kind attention so as to pass appropriate orders as they may deem fit and proper in the case.”
It is thereafter that the matter has been placed before us for final hearing. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the five reasons recorded by this Court in order dated 4.12.2001 i.e. the petitioners
did possess the prescribed qualifications at the time of their initial appointment; they had been appointed after advertisement of the posts and on all-India basis; they were appointed on the recommendations made by
the Selection Committee constituted by the Chandigarh Administration; they have continuously served in the Government College of Arts, Chandigarh, without any blemish and that it took more than nine years to the Chandigarh Administration, the Union Public Service Commission and the Government of India to finalise the recruitment rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that at the time of advertisement and appointment of the petitioner in the year 1989-90, it was 1975 rules, which were applicable. The petitioners were
appointed in pursuance of a public advertisement and after considering all the applicants, they were appointed in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. At that point of time, the posts against which the petitioners were appointed were the Class-III posts in terms of the statutory Rules. They were described as Group-A in the appointment orders only on
the basis of communication (Annexure P.8) dated 1.10.1986. Since the posts advertised were Class-III posts in terms of the statutory Rules, therefore,
consultation with the UPSC was not necessary. That was the only reason, which prevented the Administration from making the appointment of the
petitioner on regular basis. On 25.11.1999 New Rules have been framed wherein the post of lecturer was made part of Group-A and thus, consultation with the UPSC became necessary. Since, the petitioner was
appointed much before the framing of the new Rules, therefore, the consultation with the UPSC could not be the basis to treat the petitioners as adhoc appointees.
The reasoning given by the Tribunal that the order passed in Dr. Gagon Inder's case (supra) is the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the peculiar facts of the case and under the inherent jurisdiction of
the Court, is not correct. The Court has considered the fact that the appointments in the said case in Chandigarh Administration, were made prior to publication of 1990 Rules. Therefore, such appointment is in terms of the old Rules and, therefore, even if the appointment is termed adhoc but substantially it is a Regular appointment. The said judgment has been given effect to by the Administration in respect of College Lecturers. Thus, the distinction pointed out by the Tribunal is actually not made out as the said
judgment covers the entire issue involved in the present case.
In respect of the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal that the appointment in the Govt. College of Arts is a technical appointment and is governed by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, is again
not tenable. Firstly, there was no such stand of the respondents in reply that appointment to such post is governed by the said Act. Still further, it has been pointed that no guidelines have been framed by the All India Council for Technical Education in respect of the teachers working in the Fine Arts.
Therefore, in the absence of any such guidelines, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable in the case in hand.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are not sustainable in law. Consequently, the same are set aside. It is held that the appointment of the petitioners, though titled as adhoc, is in fact regular appointment and, therefore, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as regular appointees from the date of their initial appointment. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
Shilpis wait for reward money remains a dreamAbout ten months ago, Harcharan Singh Bains, Media Advisor to Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal on behalf of the CM had promised a reward of Rs 2 lakh to Shilpi for having topped Class XII in the Punjab School Education Board.
Ironically, the annual result of this session for XII is about to come but for Shilpi, who topped Class XII last year, is yet to receive her award money.
Presently pursuing a career in Bachelor of Fine Arts at Government Fine Arts College College in Chandigarh, Shilpis father Prem Kumar, a cook at the Apollo Hospital, has been running from pillar to post to get the award for his daughter.
Showing a copy of the letter, Prem Kumar said, I have met many political leaders including Vidhan Sabha Deputy Speaker Sat Pal Gosain, Chief Parliamentary Secretary Harish Rai Dhanda in this regard but all in vain. On August 12, Gosain had recommended my daughters case to the chief minister to grant her the cash award. After that I was told that the Education department will deal with the case. About three months ago, I visited the office of Punjab Education Secretary and handed over an application making an appeal for the award money. In the first week of March, I received a letter from the office of Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, which stated that the reward money would be released by the Punjab secretary education and was asked to contact him.
He further said, I feel very harassed at times as more than 10 months have passed but my daughter is yet to get her reward money.Meanwhile, after showing her talent in XII, Shilpi ranked sixth among 500 students in the test conducted for Bachelor of Fine Arts by Government Fine Arts College, Chandigarh.
Shilpi said, In January, I was told that a cheque of Rs 35,400 issued by Harish Rai Dhanda has been given to my college principal for meeting my expenses. No doubt, it helped me a lot in paying my college fees and hostel charges but I belong to a very poor family. My mother is a school peon while my father is a cook. It is not easy for them to bear the expenditure of my degree course. I get very upset when I think about my future.
15 people to be honoured on R-DayChandigarh: The state government would honour 15 people from the city and nearby areas during the Republic Day ceremony on Wednesday.
From the field of sports, rowing Coach Arvind Sehgal and Chandigarh Football Academy s coach-cum-captain Sonali Bansal will be felicitated.
Neha Sood along with the principal of Government College of Arts, DS Kappor will be given awards for their contribution in the field of art and culture.
From government services, Sub-Divisional Engineer Karamchand, Municipal Corporation worker Mohinder, Fireman Yogesh Tyagi, DSP Roshan Lal and Inspector Sita Devi will be honoured.
Many would also be given recognition for their social work.
The function will be held at the Parade Ground in sector -17.
Summary: Government College of Art, Chandigarh Chandigarh website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.