Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 82
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Smt. Tara Sen & Anr. – Petitioners
Vs
The Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P(C) No.65 of 2015
Decided on : 31-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Mr. A. Sengupta, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for non-discriminatory and reasonable application of eligibility criteria under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in accordance with the 5th CPC guidelines and Ministry of HRD orders.
Headnote:
CAS - Career Advancement Scheme - 5th CPC guidelines, Ministry of HRD orders - The court directed the respondents to reconsider the eligibility of the petitioners for upgradation under CAS from AGP Rs.6,000 to AGP Rs.7,000 in comparison to the experience of the respondents No. 5 to 14 and make appropriate recommendations within two months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the respondents' action for declaring them ineligible for consideration under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) to the higher grade (AGP Rs.7,000) while granting the benefit to others appointed on the same day or thereafter. The petitioners sought direction for their upgradation under CAS.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' application of eligibility criteria was discriminatory and arbitrary, failing to survive the test of reasonableness. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the eligibility of the petitioners and make appropriate recommendations for their upgradation under CAS within two months.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioners for upgradation under CAS in comparison to others appointed on the same day or thereafter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' application of eligibility criteria was discriminatory and arbitrary, and directed them to reconsider the eligibility of the petitioners and make appropriate recommendations for their upgradation under CAS within two months.
Final Decision: The petition stands allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to reconsider the eligibility of the petitioners for upgradation under CAS and make appropriate recommendations within two months. There shall be no order as to costs.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have fundamentally challenged the action of the respondents No. 1 to 4 for declaring them ineligible for consideration under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) to the higher grade (AGP Rs.7,000) whereas the persons who were appointed on the same day or thereafter, have been given the said benefit, in colourable exercise of power. The petitioners have further urged this court for directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 for considering their upgradation of AGP under CAS.
2. Facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner No.1, Mrs. Tara Sen (UR) was appointed in terms of the notification dated 06.04.2010 as the Assistant Professor in the Civil & Transportation Engineering Department, the petitioner No.2, Ms Seena Priyan (OBC) was appointed in terms of the said notification dated 06.04.2010 as the Assistant Professor in the Production Engineering Department whereas the petitioner No.3, Dr. Gyanabati Khuraijam (OBC) was appointed as the Assistant Professor in terms of the said notification dated 06.04.2010 under the Humanities and Social Science Department.
3. From the records so produced by the respondents No. 1 to 4, it would appear that in the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) held on 18.06.2013 the recommendation of the Selection Committee for granting upgradation under CAS by increasing AGP to the in house regular faculty members was approved. In terms of the said resolution, Mr. Rahul Banerjee (the respondent No.5), Dr. S.N. Pradan (the respondent No.6), Mr. Kamalesh Debnath (the respondent No.7), Dr(Mrs.) Mitali Saha (the respondent No.8), Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal (the respondent No.9), Mr. Jayanta Kumar Rakshit (the respondent No.10), Mr. Mitra Barun Sarkar (the respondent No.11), Mrs. Tamasi Moyra (the respondent No.12), Mr. Nirmalya Kar (the respondent No.13) and Mr. Dr. R.K. Yadav (the respondent No.14), who were holding the post of Assistant Professors were given upgradation by increasing the Academic Grade Pay (AGP).
4. From the minutes of the said 26th meeting of the BOG/National Institute of Technology Agartala (NITA), it reveals that the meetings of the Selection Committee were held during April 27-28, 2013. 53 applicants of various disciplines appeared in the interview on the basis of the call letters issued to those applicants. There is no dispute that the petitioners were even not issued the call letters and hence one additional relief as incorporated in the writ petition is for direction on the respondents No. 1 to 4 for issuing them the call letters for appearing in the interview. The said relief has become, by efflux of time, infructuous.
5. The petitioners have submitted that the respondent No.5, Mr. Rahul Banerjee (UR) was appointed in terms of the resolution adopted in the 14th BOG/NITA held on 06.04.2010. In the same meeting the BOG/NITA approved the selection of the petitioners. The selection of the respondent No.6, Dr. S.N. Pradhan (UR), the respondent No.7, Mr. Kamalesh Debnath (OBC) and the respondent No.8, Dr.(Mrs.) Mitali Saha (UR) was also approved by the same BOG/NITA held on 06.04.2010. The selection of the respondent No.9, Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal (SC), the respondent No.11, Mr. Mitra Barun Sarkar (SC) and the respondent No.12, Mrs Tamasi Moyra (UR) was approved by the 22th meeting of the BOG/NITA held on 05.04.20 12, whereas the selection of the respondent No.10, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Rakshit (OBC), the respondent No.13, Mr. Nirmalya Kar (OBC) and the respondent No.14, Dr. R.K. Yadav (OBC) was approved by the 15th meeting of the BOG/NITA held on 30.06.2010. All the respondents no. 5 to 14 were appointed in the post of Assistant Professor in their respective branches. This is also not in dispute that the respondents No. 5 to 14 have been allowed th
