Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Amitava Roy, J.
Bani Kanta Talukdar - Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 04.08.2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and enforceability of the office memorandum prescribing Ph.D. as an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in technical institutions offering PG courses, in accordance with the norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE and the purpose of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987.
Headnote:
AICTE Norms - Technical Education Service - All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 - Chapter-III, Clause 10(i) and 10(ii) - The court discussed the AICTE norms and standards for technical education, the power of the council to lay down norms and standards, and the obligation of technical institutions to comply with these norms. The judgment highlighted the essentiality of a Ph.D. degree for the post of Assistant Professor in technical institutions offering PG courses and the distinction between the qualifications for promotion and direct recruitment to the post.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer in the Assam Engineering College, sought promotion to the post of Assistant Professor but was rendered ineligible due to an office memorandum prescribing Ph.D. as an essential qualification. The petitioner challenged the memorandum, arguing that it was non est in law and inapplicable to the Technical Institutions of the State due to the absence of corresponding amendments in the Assam Technical Education Service Rules, 1981.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the office memorandum was valid and enforceable, as it followed the acceptance of norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE and was in alignment with the purpose of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's assertion in favor of the applicability of the unamended academic qualification for promotion was lacking in substance.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity and applicability of the office memorandum prescribing Ph.D. as an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in technical institutions offering PG courses, and the petitioner's challenge to the memorandum based on the absence of corresponding amendments in the Assam Technical Education Service Rules, 1981.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the office memorandum was valid and enforceable, as it followed the acceptance of norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE and was in alignment with the purpose of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987. The court also emphasized the distinction between the qualifications for promotion and direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor.
Final Decision: The petition was adjudged to be lacking in substance and was dismissed by the court.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked for annulment of the Office Memorandum No. TEC. 110/98/334, dated 6.8.2007, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, to the Government of Assam, Higher Education (Tech) Department, inter alia, modifying the academic qualification essential for induction in the post of Assistant Professor in the Assam Technical Education Service ('the Service'). Thereby, the petitioner, presently a lecturer in the Assam Engineering College, Jalukbari ('the College') Guwahati, has been rendered ineligible for promotion to the aforementioned post.
2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.R. Pathak, Learned Standing Counsel. Education Department, Assam and Mr. S. Dutta, Learned Counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education ('the Council'). Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Government of Assam.
3. The petitioner's pleaded case, in short, is that he is a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) from the Gauhati University with 1st Class (Hons.) and has also obtained Post Graduate-degree in Engineering from the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada with 82.2% marks. He claims to have to his credit several publications in the international journals as well as conferences, and is pursuing Ph.D in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur. He joined as lecturer in the Electrical Branch of the Jorhat Engineering College on 31.7.1989 and on being transferred to the College in the year 1997, he has been serving there in the said capacity since then. In course of his duties, he has also been taking up PG classes in the College, the same having been introduced in the year 2003. Though, he was, meanwhile, promoted as Assistant Teacher in the year 1985, he had to forgo the same for personal reasons. According to him, two vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor had occurred in the College for which a process to fill up the same was initiated on 12.7.207. As the exercise was nearing culmination and was at the stage of finalization, the impugned office memorandum was issued, whereby Ph.D was prescribed to be an essential qualification for being promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in technical institutions offering PG courses. Consequently, the earlier process was abandoned and a new pursuit was launched excluding the petitioner from consideration, as he lacked Ph.D.
Espousing his cause along with those of other similarly placed, the Engineering College Teachers Association held a meeting with the Director of Technical Education, Assam, wherein, it was emphasized by the Association that the criteria of Ph.D as an essential condition of eligibility be relaxed for a period of 7 years. It was underlined that the aforementioned degree, though, may be introduced as a desirable qualification, the College being a degree level institution, Senior lecturers wanting in the above qualification ought not to be deprived of promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. As the appeal by the Association to the Commissioner and Secretary, Higher Education (Technical) Department forwarding the minutes of the above meeting, seeking redressal, did not evoke any response and instead the selection process as per the impugned office memorandum gained momentum, the petitioner turned to this Court for succour.
4. The respondent State, in its affidavit, while affirming that by the impugned office memorandum it has adopted the revised guidelines of All India Council for Technical Education (hereafter for short referred to as the 'AICTE/Council', has pleaded that in terms of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 ('the Act') it (Council) had been established to ensure proper planning and coordinated development of the Technical Education System throughout the country and amongst others to regulate and oversee the proper maintenance of norms and standards therefor. Clause 10(i) and
