Point of Law : Supreme Court while taking into consideration a dispute pertaining to inter se seniority, held that seniority of appellants before Supreme Court can be reckoned only from date of regularization of their services and not from date of their initial appointment as claimed.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. The issue involved in the instant writ petition pertains to whether the petitioners who have been appointed against non-sanctioned posts and upon being regularized subsequently to sanctioned posts would be entitled to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment to non-sanctioned post.

2. Heard Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and 3, Mrs. D.D. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4.

3. The facts of the instant case are that the petitioners herein were appointed as lecturers in their respective colleges pursuant to an advertisement, selection process and interview and with necessary approval/concurrence of the governing body of the college. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed against non-sanctioned post. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to note that the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department had issued an Office Memorandum dated 17.7.2004. A perusal of the said Office Memorandum would show that there were more than 300 college teachers found to be in different Degree Colleges (deficit-grant-in-aid-college) of Assam since 1989 serving for 5 to 14 years without any valid sanctioned posts. These teachers have been serving in the colleges in the consolidated pay allowed by the respective college authorities from their own fund. These teachers were appointed by the respective governing bodies of the Colleges on need basis as per UGC guidelines. Further to that the Government of Assam has also accorded concurrence to the subjects against which these teachers were appointed and these teachers have been performing similar responsibilities like those teachers who have been working against sanctioned posts in the college. Further to that, it has been mentioned that the Government could not sanction any additional post to the deficit-grant-in-aid colleges since 1992. 52 numbers of colleges though were brought under the deficit system of grant-in-aid by the Government since 1992 but the Government had not sanctioned an additional post of lecturers since then over and above originally allocated sanctioned post. Under such circumstances, the college authorities appointed lecturers without valid sanctioned post bearing the additional financial burden. It further appears from the perusal of the Office Memorandum that 140 college teachers serving in different colleges without sanctioned post filed proceedings before this Court. This Court vide order dated 11.2.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 626/2002 and order dated 25.7.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 2368/2002 directed the Government to consider the matter of sanction of post to the college teachers serving without any sanctioned posts. Paragraph 4 along with its sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) being relevant are quoted herein-below:-

“4. The State Govt. is not in a position to sanction any new post for the colleges to accommodate the aforementioned College teachers serving without sanctioned posts. In view of the same and in pursuance to the approval of the cabinet dated 9.6.2004, the following procedure/modalities are hereby prescribed for adjustment of service of College teachers working without sanctioned posts as mentioned above:

“(a) Vacant posts in a particular Deptt. lying in a grants-in-aid College of Assam may be allotted in order of seniority to accommodate teachers in the same College who is working in some other Deptt. without a valid sanctioned post provided that such teachers were appointed by respective G.B. observing due process i.e. advertisement selection and having UGC norms required and if the need for such a post is justified by enrolment in that Deptt. of the College etc provided further, the post is not to be considered essential for the Deptt. against which it was originally sanctioned.

(b) In case of any future