Degrees obtained from unapproved off-campus centers are invalid for promotion purposes, emphasizing adherence to UGC guidelines.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board, Assam for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Y. N. Mahanta, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 (UGC), and Mr. N. Deka, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging inter alia the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 in so far as it relates to the promotion of respondent No.5 to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 has completed his B.Sc. in Botany from the Gauhati University in the year 1985 and thereafter his M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment in the year 2003 from Sikkim Manipal University (hereinafter referred to as “SMU”) and the petitioner No.2 has completed his B.Sc. in Chemistry from the Gauhati University in the year 1986, and thereafter his M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment in the year 2006 from SMU. The petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Chemist (re-designated as Assistant Environmental Scientist) under the Pollution Control Board, Assam (Employees’ Service) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 2012”) in the year 1987 and 1989 respectively, whereas the respondent No.5 joined as a Chemist (AES) in the year 1994. During their service tenure, a controversy arose in the year 2011 as to whether a M.Sc. Degree in Ecology and Environment can be equated with a M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry/Physics/Biological Science for consideration for the promotional requirements for the post of Executive Environmental Scientist from Assistant Executive Environmental Scientist and further promotion to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist. In view of the aforesaid controversy, two writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No. 912/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 6329/2013 were filed by the petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.5 respectively for clarification on the said issue of equivalence. Thereafter, this Court vide a common judgment & order dated 06.04.2015 was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid two writ petitions by referring the issue of equivalency of M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment with M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of the aforesaid promotion before a Committee of Experts for expression of opinion on the said controversy. Thereafter, the Expert Committee in its 98^th Board Meeting concluded that M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is equivalent to M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist and Chief Environmental Scientist from Executive Environmental Scientist. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist was lying vacant for a long time and the petitioners being the senior most persons available in the cadre of Senior Environmental Scientist for consideration for promotion to the said post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist, the respondent Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “PCB”) did not take any steps for promoting the petitioners and instead by order dated 22.07.2022 promoted the respondent No. 5 to the rank of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist by ignoring the petitioners. Situated thus, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. M. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the inter-se seniority it is apparent that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2 are senior to respondent No.5 and are accordingly eligible for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. He further submits that the issue of equivalence of M.Sc. Degree in Ecology and Environment with M.Sc. Degree in Biological Science being determined by the Expert Committee constituted as per common judgment & order of this Court dated 06.04.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 912/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 6329/2013, the respondent authorities ought not h