The main legal point established in the judgment is that the approval for the petitioners' upgradation to the post of Environmental Scientist was not in accordance with the 2012 Regulation, and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief in the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, and Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for Forest and Environment Department, representing respondent no.1, Mr. S. Baruah, learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board, Assam, representing respondent nos. 2 and 3, Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Smith, learned counsel for the respondent no.8. The respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 have remained unrepresented.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the office order dated 27.07.2022, by which they were demoted from the rank of Environmental Scientist to the rank of Assistant Environmental Scientist in the Pollution Control Board, Assam (hereinafter referred to as “PCBA” for short). Consequently, the petitioners have also prayed for directing the respondent authorities to allow them to discharge their duty as Environmental Scientist.

Case of the petitioners, in brief:

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief is that in the year 1994-95, when they were appointed as Scientific Assistant in the PCBA, they were having the requisite B.Sc. Degrees. Although by office order dated 23.09.2013, pending approval of the PCBA the petitioners were upgraded to the newly created post of Environmental Scientist, but the petitioners maintain that they were promoted and not ‘upgraded’. Thereafter, vide office order dated 12.08.2014, their service was regularized in the rank and post of Environmental Scientist. However, by the office order dated 27.07.2022, they were demoted to the rank and post of Assistant Environmental Scientist. The case of the petitioner is that the provision of Regulation 9(III)(a) and (c) of the Pollution Control Board, Assam (Employees’ Service) Regulation, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “2012 Regulation” for brevity) has been applied to them retrospectively.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners :

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners had submitted that on 23.09.2013, not only the posts of Assistant Environmental Scientists in the Board were upgraded to the level of Environmental Scientist, but the petitioners, who were then holding the posts of Assistant Environmental Scientists, were also upgraded to the level of Environmental Scientist. It was submitted that the said office order dated 23.09.2013, did not contain any direction that the petitioners would be required to obtain higher educational qualification of Masters Degree in Physical/ Chemical/ Biological/ Environmental Science.

5. It was submitted that it was also mentioned in the said office order dated 23.09.2013 that “the pay and other promotional benefit will accrue to these Scientists with retrospective effect only after approval of upgradation by the Board.”

6. It was also submitted that under Regulation 1(3) of the 2012 Regulation, it was provided that “These Regulations shall be applicable to all whole-time regular employees of the Board whether appointed on a time scale of pay or on fixed monthly pay or salary appointed either before or after these regulations come into force.”

7. Accordingly, in his reply submissions, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners had submitted that neither the office order dated 23.09.2013 nor the 2012 Regulation does not contain any clause that Assistant Environmental Scientists who were up-graded to the post of Environmental Scientists would have to obtain higher educational qualification. Accordingly, it was submitted that the interpretation sought to be given by the learned departmental counsel, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 8 and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 cannot be accepted to be correct inter