Prasun Chakraborti S/o Sri Paresh Chandra Chakraborti vs Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Tri) 321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Dr. Prasun Chakraborti S/o Sri Paresh Chandra Chakraborti – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 251, 399, 549, 550, 551, 553, 554, 555, 556, 572 of 2015
Decided On : 27-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.S. Sinha.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bidyut Majumder.

Headnote:
CAS - Career Advancement Scheme - 5th CPC norms - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the eligibility of the petitioners for consideration under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) following the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) norms. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) issued a letter prohibiting selection under CAS after 30/04/2013 due to the adoption of a 4-tier Cadre Structure. The court declared the petitioners eligible for consideration under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms and directed the respondents to constitute a Selection Committee to consider their cases within three months, disregarding the MHRD's embargo.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, faculty members at NIT Agartala, sought consideration under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) following the 5th CPC norms. The MHRD's letter prohibited selection under CAS after 30/04/2013 due to the adoption of a 4-tier Cadre Structure. The petitioners were found eligible for consideration under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms but were not considered due to the MHRD's embargo.
Finding of the Court:

The court declared the petitioners eligible for consideration under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms and directed the respondents to constitute a Selection Committee to consider their cases within three months, disregarding the MHRD's embargo.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were eligible for consideration under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms. 2. Whether the respondents' failure to consider the petitioners' cases under the CAS amounted to arbitrary action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were eligible for consideration under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms and directed the respondents to constitute a Selection Committee to consider their cases within three months, disregarding the MHRD's embargo.
Final Decision: All the Writ Petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to constitute a Selection Committee to consider the petitioners' cases under the CAS within three months, disregarding the MHRD's embargo.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. All these writ petitions, being W.P. (C) No. 251/2015 (Dr. Prasun Chakraborty vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 399/2015 (Dr. Ardhendu Saha and Others vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 549/2015 (Dr. Aparna Nath vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 550/2015 (Dr. Saroj Kumar Das vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 551/2015 (Dr. Manish Pal vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 553/2015 (Dr. Debasish Bhattacharya vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 554/2015 (Dr. Rama Debbarma vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 555/2015 (Dr. Ratul Das vs. Union of India and Others), W.P. (C) No. 556/2015 (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Das vs. Union of India and Others) and W.P. (C) No. 572/2015 (Dr. Priyanath Das vs. Union of India and Others), are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as the questions/ challenges as projected in these writ petitions are substantially identical and having considered the said premise, except the writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 251/2015, were heard analogously. Since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents, have in one voice stated that the writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 251/2015 and the other writ petitions as are being considered here are structured on the same nature of challenge, those may be disposed by a common judgment.

2. Sans insignificant variations in facts, the facts which are relevant for purpose of considering these writ petitions may be noted.

The writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 251/2015, namely Dr. Prasun Chakraborti, Dr. Sujit Kumar Pal, Dr. Rup Narayan Ray and Dr. Swapan Bhaumik, have been made proforma respondents in the remaining writ petitions, which are being considered here alongwith the said writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 251/2015 for the simple reason that there may not be any observation and order adverse or prejudicial to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 251/2015. However, it is to be further noted that the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 251/2015, have urged for the similar reliefs as urged by the remaining writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions as noted.

3. The fundamental question arises in these writ petitions are for consideration of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for the existing faculties following the 5th CPC norms. According to the petitioners, their non-consideration under the CAS following the 5th CPC norms are wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as all the petitioners were eligible for the CAS benefit.

4. The substantive facts are undisputed. Prior to filing of these writ petitions, some of the faculties had previously filed another writ petition urging the same reliefs as advanced in W.P. (C) No. 251/2015 and the said writ petition was registered as W.P. (C) No. 97/2013. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the judgment and order dated 12.01.2015, directing the Board of Governors of the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Agartala to re-examine the cases of the petitioners in the terms as noted under:

“(i) That, the Board of Governors of the NIT, Agartala shall re-examine the entire issue and consider the case of the petitioners afresh after giving them one opportunity of hearing on or before 31.03.2015 and the decision be conveyed to the petitioners latest by 15.04.2015;

(ii) In case, the decision is against the petitioners they shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition.”

5. Since, except the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 251/2015 the said directions did not encompass the other petitioners whose writ petitions are being considered now, those writ petitioners having confronted with such circumstances that their cases may not be considered alongwith the cases of those petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 251/2015, they served the notice dated 11.02.2015 on the Chairman, Board of Governors, the Director of National Institute of Technology, Agartala, dem