Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (KOHIMA BENCH)
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, MANISH CHOUDHURY, JJ.
N. Woshamo – Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland and Ors. – Respondents
WA Nos. 4(K) and 5(K) of 2018
Decided On : 25-10-2019
Service Laws – Notification – Regularization of Services – Present respondent Nos. 4 to 11 filed the writ petition, W.P.(C) seeking setting aside and quashing of minutes of the review DPC held regularizing the appellant as TRA w.e.f. 14.11.2003, the Notification with further prayers not to disturb their seniority positions over the appellant in the higher grades of Research Associate and Reader and to conduct a review DPC. – Court in the order passed in W.P.(C) recorded the assurance of State counsel that the seniority positions of the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in the interim, would not be disturbed. – In view of the said order the appellants seniority position in terms of the minutes of the DPC was not given effect to. – Held, It is a settled proposition that an incumbent cannot be granted seniority prior to his birth in the grade adversely effecting the seniority of other incumbent who had been appointed prior to him. – Admittedly, the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 had earlier arrived in the grade of TRA in view of their early regularization. – Thus, it is not open for the appellant to raise any question in that regard. As the B.Ed. degree was an essential qualification prescribed for the post of TRA, just because the appellant was appointed in the said post without the B.Ed. qualification and was allowed to function it cannot be countenanced that he can be regularized in that post and consequently, can be conferred seniority from a date prior to his acquiring the said essential qualification and thereby, stealing a march over the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 whose services were already regularised by the State respondents by considering them to be in possession of the essential qualification to hold the post of TRA. – It is also not the case of the appellant that he was in possession of any other qualification, prior to 31.07.2006, which can be considered to be equivalent to B.Ed. degree under the then extant Rules, like the cases of respondent No. 7 and respondent No. 9. – Court find no force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. – Resultantly, Court unhesitantly hold that the appellants claim for regularization of his service in the post of TRA w.e.f. 14.11.2003 and his claim of seniority in that post on and from 14.11.2003 have no basis. – Therefore Court find no justification to interfere with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the two writ petitions, W.P.(C) – Resultantly, Court find no merits in these two writ appeals presented against the same – Writ Appeals Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 11.
2. Both these intra-court appeals are presented against the common judgment and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 98(K)/2016 & W.P.(C) No. 198(K)/2016. By the said common judgment and order dated 01.09.2017, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 98 (K)/2016, had dismissed the other writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 198(K)/2016. The respondent Nos. 4 to 11 herein were the writ petitioners and the present appellant was respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 98(K)/2016. On the other hand, the present appellant was the writ petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in the other writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 198(K)/2016.
3. As the issues and nature of assailment in both the appeals are inter-connected, the same are heard together. In order to appreciate the issues and the nature of challenges made in this appeals it is apt to delineate the necessary facts, in brief, which led to the institution of the two writ petitions mentioned hereinabove.
4. The contesting parties i.e. the appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 to 11, are employees in the establishment of the Directorate of State Council of Educational Research and Training ("the SCERT", in short), a directorate created separately under the Education Department of the Government of Nagaland, by a Notification dated 18.12.1986.
5. (i) The appellant who was M.A. (Sociology) at that relevant point of time, was initially appointed as a Junior Research Fellow (JRF) in the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Cell, an UNICEF assisted project, at a fixed pay of Rs. 1,500/- under the establishment of the SCERT, Nagaland by an order dated 21.06.1995 issued under the hand of the Director, SCERT, Nagaland. Thereafter by an order dated 02.09.2003, the appellant was brought under the establishment of the SCERT by appointing him as JRF on a fixed pay of Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2003. When the appellant was so working as JRF on fixed pay, he was given officiating promotion to the post of Training-cum-Research Assistant (TRA) in the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- p.m. with immediate effect under the Directorate of SCERT, Nagaland by a Notification dated 14.11.2003 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Education Department, SCERT Branch, subject to his regularization by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). It was stipulated therein that the said officiating promotion to the post of TRA was subject to two conditions, (a) the appellant should pass B.Ed. within 5 (five) years; and (b) half of the appellant's contingency services so rendered as JRF would be counted for pension under the relevant Rules.
(ii) The appellant was allowed to pursue B.Ed. Course along with the respondent No. 7 and one Sri Razouvelie Peter Pewheo, TRA by the Director on 21.02.2005. The appellant, the respondent No. 7 and said Sri Razouvelie Peter Pewheo had obtained the B.Ed., degree on 31.07.2006.
6. (i) The respondent No. 4 was initially appointed to the post of TRA on contract basis in the Directorate of SCERT by a Notification dated 31.08.1995 w.e.f. the date of his joining in the post, initially for a period of 1 (one) year. The respondent No. 5 who was an Assistant Teacher in Government High School, Sendenyu, was appointed as TRA in the Directorate of SCERT by a Notification dated 05.09.1995 on deputation basis, initially for a period of 2 (two) years. The respondent No. 6 was appo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
