High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3538/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. G Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The responden t Nos.1 & 2 are represented by Mr. SMT Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Educat ion. The Principal of the B.B.K. College, Nagaon in Barpeta District issued a 2. n advertisement on 30.11.2000 (Annexure-1) for, inter alia, the post of Lecture r in Arabic and the petitioner offered his candidature to the said post. The Sel ection Board after considering the candidature of the applicants prepared a sele ct list where one Nuruddin Ahmed was placed in the 1st position, the petitioner in the 2nd position and Md. Sahjahan Amin in the 3rd position. Initially the 1st nominated Nuruddin Ahmed was offered appointment but as he got an offer from Co tton College, the post in the B.B.K. College became available for other selected persons. Consequently the Governing Body through the resolution of 2.2.2003 dec ided to recommend the petitioner and approval for appointment of the 2nd selecte d candidate was sought on 10.2.2003 (Annexure-3) from the DHE, Assam. 3. But in the meantime, the 3rd person in the select list Md. Sahjahan Amin filed the WP(C) No.1041/2003 to challenge the appointment of the petitioner and initially an interim order was passed in that case on 11.2.2003. But on the app lication of the College Authorities through the Misc. Case No.638/2003, the inte rim order was vacated on 13.5.2003, clearing the way for consideration of approv al for the petitioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the Court’s above order, the approval for the petitioner 4. ’s appointment was not being accorded and accordingly the petitioner filed the W P(C) No.7223/2003 for appropriate direction. The case was allowed through the or der dated 5.9.2003 (Annexure-6) and the DHE, Assam was directed to accord approv al for appointment of the petitioner as the Lecturer in Arabic in the B.B.K. Col lege. 5. On the strength of the Court’s order in the WP(C) No.7223/2003, the Gove rnment through its order dated 20.8.2005 conveyed the approval for the petitione r’s appointment, subject to clearance of NET/SLET and on the basis of the Govern ment’s approval, the DHE passed the impugned order on 20.8.2005 (Annexure-8) app roving appointment but in the fixed pay of Rs.5000/- P.M. 6. The petitioner eventually acquired the M. Phil Degree on 1.8.2008 (equiv alent to NET/SLET) and only thereafter, he has started receiving the prescribed scale of pay of lecturers. The petitioner’s grievance relates to non-granting of the UGC scale of pay from the date of joining i.e. 31.8.2005 till 1.8.2008, whe n he secured the M. Phil Degree. 7. While the departmental affidavit has not been filed, Mr. SMT Chistie, le arned Standing Counsel, Education submits that by the time the petitioner came t o be appointed, NET/SLET qualification was made mandatory and that is why, the c onditional approval for his appointment was accorded on provisional basis, on fi xed pay of Rs.5,000/- P.M. The records show that one Birinchi Choudhury, who was appointed as lectu 8. rer in Economics in pursuant to the same advertisement of 30.11.2000 (Annexure-1 ) was granted the UGC scale of pay of Rs.8,000/- -- Rs.13,500/- by the DHE, Assa m. The petitioner who was selected through the same process for the post of lect urer is Arabic, however has been denied the benefit of the usual pay scale, as w as granted to his colleague lecturer in the Economics department. 9. The only reason for not granting the UGC pay scale to the petitioner is his belated appointment. But it is apparent that the resolution for his appointm ent was sought from the DHE, Assam as far back as on 10.2.2003. But because of t he Court’s interim order in the WP(C) No.1041/2003, the appointment was delayed and in fact the petitioner had to file an independent case i.e. WP(C) No.7223/20 03 to compel the Director to do his duty. Even then, there is delay in complying the Court’s order dated 5.9.2003 in the WP(C) No.7223/2003 and to enforce the o rder, the petitioner had to file the Contempt Case No.590/2004. In the above backdrop, it is apparent that had the approval to the reque 10. st made by the college authorities on 10.2.2003 (Annexure-3) would have been acc orded with due promptitude, the petitioner would have been appointed in the same year as his colleague Birinchi Choudhury, who was appointed as lecturer in Econ omics. The recruitment process for the posts of lecturer in Arabic was well as i n Economics was started with the common advertisement of 30.11.2000 (Annexure-1) and the selection were also made for both posts around the same time. The appro val for appointment was delayed for the petitioner only because of the Court’s i nterim order in the WP(C) No.1041/2003, which was filed by the 3rd empanelled ca ndidate Md. Sahjahan Amin. Even thereafter the petitioner had to file an indepen dent case and also a Contempt Case to force the DHE, Assam to consider approval sought by the college, for his appointment of lecturer in Arabic. 11. Having considered the above, I’m of the view that the respondent authori ties should re-consider the conditional approval granted for appointment of the petitioner as lecturer in Arabic in B.B.K. College, Nagaon. The fresh considerat ion is required to be made, since the petitioner has received fixed pay of Rs.5, 000/- P.M. from 31.8.2005 to 1.8.2008, till he eventually secured the M. Phil De gree, which is considered equivalent to NET/SLET qualification, for drawing the UGC pay of the lecturer. Denial of regular pay scale during this period as was g ranted to similarly appointed lecturer in Economics can’t be attributed to any f ault of the petitioner, as Court’s interim order prevented the timely appointmen t. 12. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to give a representation to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Higher Education. The representation should be considered on merit in accordance with the applicab le norms. However the Commissioner will take into account that the petitioner’s appointment was delayed because of the belated approval accorded by the departme ntal authorities to the proposal sent on 10.2.2003 (Annexure-3) by the college a uthorities. The decision on the petitioner’s representation be given expeditious ly and preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of receipt of intim ation from the petitioner. 13.