Rights under Article 14 do not support negative equality; benefits granted illegally to others cannot be used as a basis for similar claims.

JUDGMENT :

(SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.)

The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a claim for provincialisation of the services of the petitioner under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is an M.A. and was appointed in the Barkhetri College (herein after College) as Lecturer in Hindi on 08.12.1997. At that time, the said College was in the venture stage. Prior to the said appointment, the Government had granted concurrence to TDC Part-I which includes the Hindi subject vide communication dated 20.01.1995 and to TDC Part-II which includes Hindi vide communication dated 12.09.1997. It is projected that such concurrence has been continuing. While the petitioner was serving, the Guwahati University had issued a communication dated 16.12.2009 to the Government for granting concurrence to the Barkhetri College and in the said communication, the aspect of Elective Hindi subject was included. Subsequently, vide communication dated 10.08.2012, the Guwahati University had moved the Government for granting concurrence to the College in respect st of Hindi (Major) in TDC 1 year. In between vide communication dated 19.12.2011, the Principal of the College had issued a communication to the Director of Higher Education giving the particulars of the employees with a recommendation for provincialization. The said communication was issued in terms of the Act of 2011 and in the enclosure, the name of the petitioner was against Sl. No. 16. On 07.04.2014, the Director of Higher Education had issued a communication by which so far as the petitioner is concerned, her seniority was directed to be counted from 11.12.1997 and in the enclosed details in a tabular form, the petitioner is at Sl. No. 14. It may be mentioned that in the said table, one Ashok Das in the subject of Hindi is against Sl.No. 11.

3. The Director of Higher Education issued a communication dated 30.08.2014 and it is the case of the petitioner that in the enclosure containing names of incumbents, many of them did not have NET/SLET /M.Phil/Ph.D and yet they were given the benefit of regularization. It is projected that there are sufficient numbers of students and for no discernible reasons, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected whereas in other Colleges, more than two appointments have been made in Hindi subject.

4. I have heard Shri R.C. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K. Saikia, Ms. R. Bharali and Ms. M.M. Das learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department and Shri S. Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

5. Shri Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there was no legal impediment in provincializing the services of the petitioner and a case of discrimination has also been tried to be projected. It is submitted that so fa