The amendment to a statutory provision cannot have a retrospective effect on a recruitment process initiated prior to the amendment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in this batch of writ petitions. Also heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University appearing for the respondents.

2. These writ petitions are factually inter-related and therefore, are being taken up for disposal by this common order.

3. The facts of these cases, in a nutshell, are that on 17.04.2012 the Gauhati University had issued and advertisement notice No.NTS/5/2012 inviting applications for filling up a number of posts in various categories including one post of Junior Literary Assistant-cum-Proof Reader, 5 posts of Accounts Assistant, 10 posts of Lower Division Assistant and 6 posts of Computer Typist. The advertisement notice dated 17.04.20212 had clearly mentioned the scale of pay applicable in case of each post. In response to the advertisement notice dated 17.04.2012 the writ petitioners herein had submitted their candidature for the respective posts. After going through the selection process comprising of written test and interview, the petitioners were selected and accordingly, orders of appointments were also issued in their favour. However, contrary to the projections made in the advertisement notice, which had reflected that the recruitments would be made against vacant sanctioned posts, the petitioners were asked to give an undertaking accepting their initial appointment as contractual employees, which would be valid for a period of one year.

4. According to Mr. Kaushik, believing the assurance given by the University authorities to the effect that their services would be eventually regularized, the petitioners had given such undertakings accepting the contractual appointments. However, despite the lapse of more than nearly 7 years since their appointments, the petitioners are still continuing as contractual employees with annual renewal of their appointments thereby, causing serious prejudice to their rights and interest. Hence, these writ petitions.

5. By referring to the materials available on record, more particularly the Office Order darted 01.11.2016, Mr. Kaushik has argued that a number of similarly situated employees who were also appointed pursuant to the selection process initiated vide advertisement notice dated 17.04.2012 have been permanently absorbed by the University authority. Notwithstanding the same, the cases of the petitioners have not been considered for permanent absorption till today. As such, the petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petitions.

6. A joint affidavit, sworn by the Registrar, Gauhati University, has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. The reason for not regularizing and/or permanently absorbing the services of the petitioners has been spelt out in paragraph 5 of the affidavit which has been reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

“5. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition, your Deponent states that, the posts mentioned in the advertisement were sanctioned posts. Before appearing in the interview, the Petitioners were requested to sign in an undertaking showing that they will be appointed on contractual basis initially for 1(one) year. In this regard, it is to be mentioned herein that, a notification vide No.LGI.133/2012/5 dated 30.05.2013 was received from the Government of Assam. By the above orders of the Governor, the University was compelled to maintain the teaching and non-teaching staff ratio. As per the Government notification dated 30.05.2013, a new section i.e. Section 44 was inserted in the Gauhati University Act, 1947 by amending the said Act of 1947 which is quoted herein below.

“The University shall establish and maintain the teaching and non-teaching staff ratio at 1 : 1.5 progressively. In order to establish this teaching and non-teaching staff ratio the University shall not appoint any non-teaching employee afresh against sanctioned vacant post and also shal