Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kardak Ete, J.
Dr. Dipika Kalita, W/o Dr. Mridul Deka - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented by The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Higher Education Deptt. and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 7024/2021
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Regularization - Service Regularization - [Governing Body resolution, Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2009, Government order dated 26.12.2012, Office Memorandum No. AHE.502/2014/131 dated 24.05.2018] - The court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 19.10.2021, directing the respondent to treat the date of regularization of service of the petitioner as 14.06.2003 instead of 08.04.2008, in line with the office memorandum dated 24.05.2018.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of the date of regularization of her service, contending that she was appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology at Bajali college against a non-sanctioned post and her service was regularized against the lien vacancy of Dr. R.N. Das. The impugned order dated 19.10.2021 withdrew the date of regularization of the petitioner's service to 08.04.2008 from 14.06.2003.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was factually incorrect and issued without consideration of the office memorandum dated 24.05.2018. It set aside and quashed the impugned order, directing the respondent to treat the date of regularization of service of the petitioner as 14.06.2003 instead of 08.04.2008.
Issues: The issues revolved around the date of regularization of the petitioner's service and the validity of the impugned order dated 19.10.2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was factually incorrect and issued without consideration of the office memorandum dated 24.05.2018, and directed the respondent to treat the date of regularization of service of the petitioner as 14.06.2003 instead of 08.04.2008.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 19.10.2021, directing the respondent to treat the date of regularization of service of the petitioner as 14.06.2003 instead of 08.04.2008, in line with the office memorandum dated 24.05.2018.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None appears for the respondents no. 3 and 4.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order No. DHE/CE/UGE/646/2020/63 dated 19.10.2021 passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, whereby, the date of regularization of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.06.2023 is withdrawn and treated as 08.04.2008 i.e. from the date of regular vacancy after expiry of lien of one Dr. R.N. Das.
3. The case, of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that she was appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology at Bajali college, Pathsala Barpeta (now Bhattadev University, Bajali) against non-sanctioned post vide order dated 22.12.1997, pursuant to a selection process. The petitioner is a holder of M.Phil in Zoology and Ph.D. from the Gauhati University. The initial appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Zoology vide order dated 22.12.1997 was pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.1997 and she has joined on 23.12.1997.
4. The Governing Body of the Bajali college in its meeting held on 17.07.2000 has recommended for appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer against the lien vacancy of Dr. R.N. Das, which was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, on 16.08.2000 in the scale of pay 8000-275-13500/- PM plus other allowances. Accordingly, she was appointed against the said lien vacancy.
5. It is contended that lien period of Dr. R.N. Das was about to expire w.e.f. 14.06.2003 as Dr. R.N. Das did not return back to rejoin the college till 14.06.2003. On expiry of his lien period on 14.06.2003, the first regular vacancy of lecturer in the department of Zoology became available. Since, Dr. R.N. Das did not return back to join the Bajali college, the Governing Body in its meeting dated 10.08.2003 vide resolution No. 8 had resolved to terminate the service of Dr. R.N. Das, as a lecturer of Zoology Department, on the expiry of three years lien period and further resolved to regularised the service of the petitioner in the post of Dr. R.N. Das, as the petitioner had served in the lien vacancy of Dr. R.N. Das, between 17.08.2000 to 14.06.2003, after she was appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.1997 and allowed to serve in the lien vacancy. In the meantime, one Dr. Pradip Kumar Sarma challenged the resolution dated 10.08.2003 by filing the writ petition being WP (C ) No. 6430 of 2003. The petitioner had also filed two writ petitions i.e., WP(C) Nos. 3599/2005 and WP(C) No. 1161 of 2009. In the WP(C) No. 3599/2005, the petitioner had prayed for a direction for payment of her regular salary, whereas, in WP(C) No. 1161/2009, the petitioner had prayed for a direction for implementation of the Governing Body’s resolution dated 10.08.2003. This Hon’ble Court vide Judgment and order dated 27.08.2009 dispose of all the writ petitions by directing the respondents to take necessary steps to consider regularisation of service of 3 non-sanctioned Lecturers to the three regular vacancies occurred on 14.06.2003, 28.07.2003 and 31.08.2007 respectively on the basis of seniority keeping in mind the requirement of prescribed norms.
6. The Governing Body of the college after the above judgment and order dated 27.08.2009 passed by this Court, in its meeting dated 21.09.2009, had resolved to regularise the service of the petitioner against the permanent vacancy that occurred on 14.06.2003 i.e., the date of expiry of lien of Dr. R.N. Das, Ex-Lecturer of the Department of Zoology.
7. The Principal of the College vide letter dated 24.09.2009, requested the respondent no. 2 to approve the aforesaid resolution of the Governing Body for regularisation of the services of the petitioner against the permanent vacancy that occurred on 14.06.2003. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated had appro
The court affirmed that administrative actions must be taken within a reasonable time frame, and the cancellation of a long-standing appointment based on flawed reasoning is unjustified.
The court ordered an enquiry into the alleged non-concurrence of the English subject to rectify the exclusion of the petitioner from the Final Seniority List, emphasizing adherence to proper legal pr....
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 regul....
The cancellation of an employee's regularization based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of non-discrimination and due process, necessitating restoration of benefits to similarly situated indi....
The judgment established the principle that eligibility for regularization under a specific category is contingent upon the nature of the appointment against a sanctioned post. It also emphasized the....
Regularization of part-time employees must adhere to the principles of regular appointment and cannot be granted as a back-door entry.
Regularization of appointment against a sanctioned post and determination of seniority based on the date of regularization.
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
