IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Bhaben Chandra Kalita, Son of Late Sukhana Ram Kalita – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondents
WP(C) No.622 of 2022
Decided on : 23-04-2024
Provincialisation - Librarian Services - Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 - Act of 2011
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Librarian at Gyandeep Degree College, Nikashi, sought provincialisation of his services under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. Despite being recommended for provincialisation, his name was excluded from the final list due to being deemed 'under qualified'. The Act of 2011 was later held to be ultravires, and the petitioner sought consideration under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 and the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Non-Teaching Staff of Venture Educational Institutions) Act, 2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case under the Act of 2011 did not attain finality as it was not considered and approved by the Government in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation under the Act of 2018 for consideration of provincialisation of his services.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for provincialisation under the Act of 2011, the subsequent Acts of 2017 and 2018, and the procedural requirements for consideration of provincialisation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's case under the Act of 2011 did not attain finality as it was not considered and approved by the Government in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation under the Act of 2018 for consideration of provincialisation of his services.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation under the Act of 2018 for consideration of provincialisation of his services, and mandated the Director of Higher Education, Assam to initiate and conclude the consideration process within three months.
Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. B. Deori, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceedings, has raised a grievance with regard to non-consideration of his case for provincialisation of his services as a Librarian in Gyandeep Degree College, Nikashi. The petitioner claims that his services are required to be directed to be provincialised w.e.f. 01.01.2013 in terms of the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2011”).
3. The petitioner herein contends that he possesses the requisite qualifications for appointment against the post of Librarian in a College of the State of Assam. Accordingly, noticing the qualifications possessed by the petitioner, the Managing Committee of Gyandeep Degree College, Nikashi, Baksa, vide an order dated 20.09.1999, appointed the petitioner as the Librarian in the said College. The petitioner joined his services in the said College in terms of the appointment so made in his case w.e.f. 25.09.1999 and he is working therein as on date. It is to be noted that at the time of appointment of the petitioner in the said College, the College was in its venture stage.
4. As projected in the writ petition, on the enactment of the provisions of the said Act of 2011, the cases of the eligible teaching and non-teaching staff of the College in question was placed before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee as constituted in the matter for verification of their service particulars and making recommendation in their case for provincialisation of their services. It is contended that the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, on consideration of the case of the petitioner, had recommended his case for provincialisation of his services. However, when the final list of teachers eligible for provincialisation was so published, the name of the petitioner was shown therein with the remark “under qualified”. The petitioner thereafter preferred a representation on 05.04.2013 for inclusion of his name in the list of eligible teachers, however, the same was not considered.
5. The services of the eligible teaching and non-teaching staff of the said College came to be provincialised vide an order dated 20.01.2014 w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The case of the petitioner not having been provincialised, he repeatedly approached the respondent authorities for reconsideration of his case and for provincialisation of his services w.e.f. 01.01.2013 in the manner the other teaching and non-teaching staff of the said College were so provincialised. However, in view of the fact that the said Act of 2011 was held to be ultravires by this Court and set aside vide the judgment & order dated 23.09.2016 passed in WP(C) No.5825/2012, further processing of the case of the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act of 2011 could not be taken forward. It is contended by the petitioner that upon enactment of the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2017”), he submitted representations before the authorities for consideration of his case. However, the consideration as required to be made in his case not having been so made, the present proceedings have been instituted by the petitioner.
6. It is to be noticed that with regard to provincialisation of the services of non-teaching staff of venture educational institutions, the authorities had enacted the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Non-Teaching Staff of Venture Educational Institutions) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2018”) and the post of Librarian having been included within the p
The main legal point established is that the petitioner's case for provincialisation under the Act of 2011 did not attain finality as it was not considered and approved by the Government in accordanc....
The petitioner's entitlement to provincialisation under the Act of 2011 was not established, and he was directed to seek consideration under the Act of 2018.
The petitioner's entitlement to provincialisation of services was determined based on the procedural requirements and eligibility criteria outlined in the relevant Acts.
The petitioner has a vested right for consideration of provincialization of services based on continuous service since 02.04.2010, despite erroneous submission by school authorities.
The mandatory nature of Section 10(4) of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011 and the entitlement of serving teachers to have their cases considered un....
Beneficial legislation for provincialisation of service must be interpreted to include employees who have rendered continuous service from their initial appointment, even if they acquired the requisi....
The Court established that provincialization eligibility is contingent upon meeting the UGC qualifications at the time of consideration, not at the time of appointment.
The appellate authority must provide a reasoned decision based on all relevant materials, not solely on the petitioner's failure to appear at hearings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.