High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1695/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BK SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr.M.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr .T.N.Srinivasan, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5. I have also heard Mr.A.Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education.
Decision
Both the writ petitions pertain to provincialisation of services of the petitioners and the respondents No.5 and 6. It is an admitted fact that the name s of the two petitioners were included in the list for provincialisation prepare d by the District Scrutiny Committee. As per the provisions of Section 10 of Ass am Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, t here shall be one District Scrutiny Committee in each district and the said Com mittee is required to be constituted by the Deputy Commissioner of the Distric t. While the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in Physics and Statistics r espectively in 1999, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 involved in the writ petitions w ere appointed in 2007 and 2006 respectively. Thus admittedly, the two petitioner s are senior to them. When the matter for provincialisation of service of the teaching staff w as processed and routed through the District Scrutiny Committee, the said Commit tee incorporated the names of the two petitioners in the list by which recommend ation was made for provincialistion of their services alongwith others. However , when the matter was placed before the Director of Higher Education he prepared another list incorporating the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and placing the names of the petitioners in the list of under qualified teaching staff . Being a ggrieved by such action on the part of the Director of Higher Education, the wr it petitions have been filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director Higher Education, he has virtually admitted the mistake committed by him in deleting the names of the pe titioners and incorporating the names of the private respondents i.e.the respond ent Nos.5 and 6. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit it has been stated thus: (cid:28)That the deponent begs to state that the Government of Assam in the Ed ucation Department has taken steps for provincialisation of services of the empl oyees working in venture educational institutions in the light of the ’Assam Ve nture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 amended in 2012. As per Section 10 of the Act, the Head of the venture institutions are required to forward the particulars of the teaching and non-teaching staffs w orking in the Institution before the District Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny. The District Scrutiny Committee after scrutinizing the same will transmit the same to the Directorate for taking steps for provincialisation. Thereafter the office of the deponent uploaded the list of qualified venture colleges showin g the names of staff of the said college. The Act of 2011 amended in 2012 has pr escribed the number of staffs of a college eligible for provincialisation. The office of the Directorate cannot change the staff pattern as submitted by the D istrict Scrutiny Committee . Unless the name of the petitioner is forwarded by the District Scrutiny Committee within the number of staffs entitled for the be nefits of provincialisation as per the Act, the deponent cannot include the name of the petitioner. However, while uploading the list of qualified/under qualified/disqualif ied incumbents in SSA portal, some inadvertent errors through oversight/typograp hical mistakes occurred in making recommendation for the purpose of the benefit of provincialisation. In this connection, the office of the deponent uploaded a Notification v ide No. PC/HE/Col-16/2011/215 dated 14.03.2013 in website for submission of appe al on or before 25.04.2013 for review/reconsideration of those errors/mistakes a nd for further examination and finalization of the list of employees/colleges fo r provincialisation. The process of further examinations of the list of employees/colleges ar e going on. Therefore, the Directorate needs/require some more time for examinat ion/verification of the petitioner’s case. The process for verification and cor rection of errors/mistake process is under progress. (cid:29) If we go by the above admission on the part of the Director of Higher Ed ucation, he could not have changed the list that was sent by the District Scrut iny Committee. While admitting the mistake committed by him he has qualified the same as some inadvertent errors through over sight /typographical mistake. He also admitted that the Directorate could not have changed the staff pattern as was submitted by District Scrutiny Committee. Mr Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 however submits t hat the Director is vested with the power to make change in the list forwarded b y the District Scrutiny Committee, as per the provisions of Section 10(4) of the aforesaid Act. Apart from the fact that the Director of Higher Education has no t assigned any reason for the changes made by him in the counter affidavit, no remarks requiring such changes are also discernible in the subsequent list pre pared by him. As per provision of Section 10 (4), the final notification is required t o be issued by the Govt. after the list submitted by the District Scrutiny Commi ttee routed through the Director of Higher Education. Mr.Srinivasan , learned counsel for respondent No.5 while emphasizing th e power of the Director to make the changes has also emphasized on the requireme nt of eligibility of provincialisation. He submits that the petitioners being no t qualified having not obtained the Ph.d/NET/SLET qualification, the Director ri ghtly made the changes in the list that was recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee. Countering the above arguments , Mr.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.1718/2013 has also obtained SLET qualification in February, 2013. So far the second petitioner in volved in WP(C) No.1695/2013 is concerned, referring to the provisions of Secti on 10(4) of the Act, he submits that apart from the fact the petitioner is seni or to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 , he is entitled to get relaxation in respect of prescribed qualification from the date of provincialisation of services . It is on record that Lecturers acquiring NET/SLET in February, 2013 alongwith the petitioner in WP(C) No.1718/2013 have been considered for provincialisation. Th us no distinction can be made in respect of the petitioner involved in WP(C) No. 1718/2013 . As regards the other petitioner in WP(C) No.1695/2013 , his case wi ll have to be considered as per relaxation clause under Section 4 of the afor esaid Act. Director of Higher Education having admitted his mistake in respect of t he recommendation made by the by District Scrutiny Committee, he ought to have r ectified the same and thereafter placed the matter before the State Govt. in the Education Department for issuance of final notification. Be that as it may , since the matter is now pending with the Govt., in the Education Department, both the writ petitions are disposed of with a directi on to pass appropriate order consistently with the observations made above, as e xpeditiously as possible preferably within 28th February, 2014.