Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dr. Arup Bhattacharjee - Appellant
Versus
The Director, National Institute Of Technology, Silchar And 2 Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 5055 OF 2017
Decided on : 21-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay of 200 days – Power of High court to issue writs - Whether direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to reconsider case of petitioner for placement as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect and to grant all consequential benefits; was it a mere direction to consider case of petitioner or was it a mandamus directing respondents to consider case of petitioner in light of observations made in said judgment - whether said directions passed in WP(C) is mere direction to consider keeping all points open or was it a direction to consider in light of observations made by this Court - Observations so made in Minutes of meeting and conclusion therefore are acts done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause and therefore would mean exercise of power for purposes foreign to those for which in law it was intended. (Para 31).
Findings of the Court :
Respondents are not left with no discretion but to give promotion to petitioner as Lecturer (Senior Scale) at least with effect with consequential benefits in light of judgment and order, passed in WP(C) - This view so taken by this Court is for reason that, it has been almost more than two decades that rights of petitioner to be given promotion as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect along with consequential service benefits have been pending and interest of justice demands that finality is attained to almost two decade old dispute.
Result : Writ Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G.J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2. This is a writ petition challenging the Minutes of the Meeting/Report of the Committee dated 27.04.2017 forwarded vide letter No.NITS/Estt/BOG-54 dated 16.05.2017 and the corresponding Minutes of the 53rd and the 54th BOG Meeting insofar as the petitioner is concerned; for a direction to the respondents to affect date of promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer (Senior Scale) at least with effect from 03.10.2001 with consequential service benefit including arrear monetary benefit in the light of the judgment and order dated 03.02.2017 in WP(C) No.1969/2014; for a direction to the respondent to affect the date of promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer (Selection Grade) at least with effect from 03.10.2006 with consequential service benefit including arrear monetary benefit and to promote the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor in PB-IV, AGP Rs.9,000/-on completion of 3 years as Assistant Professor in PB-III, AGP Rs.8,000/- with effect from 03.10.2009.
3. The facts of the instant case is that the petitioner passed Bachelor of Engineering degree in Computer Science and Engineering from REC, Silchar in the year 1993. Thereafter the petitioner completed his M. Tech in March 1999 under GATE scholarship and obtained Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) on 11.03.2012. The petitioner initially served as Service Engineer with Zenith Computer from September, 1993 to December, 1994 and from January 1995 he served as a Software Engineer with IT India Ltd. (Usha Group) before joining REC, Silchar in the year 1996.
4. It is relevant herein to take note that the Regional Engineering College, Silchar which now had been converted to the National Institute of Technology with the Status of deemed University as per the Government of India notification, dated 14.05.2003 had invited an application for filling up of various posts like Professor, Asstt. Professor, Lecturer, System Programmer and Foreman. At serial No.6 of the advertisement, applications were invited for filling up of the post of System Programmer (under Computer Science and Engineering) in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000/-(pre revised) which was also the scale of pay of Lecturer. As per the said advertisement, the job requirement of the post of System Programmer was (i) Selected candidates will be required to manage computer system (on various platform) in Electrical Engg./Computer Centre. (ii) Selected candidates may be required to work in shifts (iii) Selected candidates may require to share the teaching load as need may arise. It has been specifically pleaded in the writ petition at paragraph No.4 is that the post of System Programmer is equivalent to the post of Lecturer in scale/grade with equal qualification for Lecturer.
5. The petitioner applied for the post of System Programmer and was selected and appointed for the said post vide a letter No.RECS/ET/2/77/Vol-3/6/57-61 dated 26.08.1996. The petitioner thereafter joined the then REC in the substantive post of System Programmer. It was specifically pleaded that as per the job requirement, the petitioner was taking regular classes of B. Tech in Computer Science and Engineering. The petitioner thereafter was selected for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering vide a communication No.RECS/Estt./ET/2/77/vol-3 dated 22.12.1999 which had the same scale of pay as that of the System Programmer. It has been specifically mentioned in the writ petition that the pay scale of both the System Programmer and the Lecturer was revised to Rs.8000-275-13500 following adoption of the 5th CPC recommendation as approved by All India Council of Technical Education (in short “AICTE) in the year 1997.
6. The further facts of the case are that the Ministry of Human Resources and Development had issued a letter o
Point of Law : Where range of discretion with authorities have been cut down to such an extent that only one decision is possible, Court may specifically direct authority to act in a particular manne....
The court affirmed that prior non-teaching service can be considered for promotion under the CAS if the roles are deemed equivalent, as per UGC guidelines.
power of the Government to make laws determining the service conditions of its employees or amend such laws cannot confer them the power to apply such laws differently to similarly situated persons.
The respondent is entitled to Career Advancement Scheme benefits based on her prior service in accordance with AICTE guidelines, as her qualifications were deemed sufficient.
The AICTE's clarifications dictate promotion qualifications; retrospective qualifications cannot be enforced by the State, ensuring rights of consistently employed individuals are protected.
Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with ....
Lecturers appointed before January 1, 1996 are entitled to selection grade benefits without needing a Master’s degree, ensuring equal treatment in service matters.
Expression ‘further consequential benefits’ would have to be understood to mean of such consequential benefits of promotion i.e. further promotions that petitioner may be entitled having his date of ....
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
