Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3820/2023 on 23 October, 2025
GAHC010198752017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Principal Seat at Guwahati
Writ Petition No. 3820/2023.
Baneswar Bezbaruah,
S/o Late Praneswar Bezbaruah,
Vill. - Belbari,
P.S. - Barkhapala,
Dist. - Barpeta,
PIN - 781307.
...... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Assam Secretariat, Block - C, Ground Floor.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati - 19.
3. University Grants Commission represented by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi,
PIN - 110002.
4. Governing Body of Madhya Kamrup College, Subha,
Represented by its President,
P.O. - Chenga,
Dist. - Barpeta,
PIN - 781305.
Page 1 of 30
5. The Principal-cum-Secretary,
Madhya Kamrup College, Subha,
P.O. - Chenga,
Dist. - Barpeta,
PIN - 781305.
...... Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Advocate for the petitioner :- Mr. P. Mahanta.
Advocate for the respondent No. 2 :- Mr. D. Upamanyu.
Advocate for the respondent No. 3 :- Dr. P. Agarwala.
Date of Hearing :- 23.10.2025.
Date of Judgment & Order :- 23.10.2025.
JUDGEMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, being respondent No. 2; and Dr. P. Agarwala, learned standing counsel for the UGC, being respondent No. 3.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has:-
Page 2 of 30(i) Prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent No. 2, to extend the benefits of UGC Scale of pay with increments to him, from the date of his appointment, as Lecturer, in Political Science Department, i.e. on 08.07.1994, instead of 01.04.2008, by re-fixing his pay, as per UGC norms, by removing or rectifying the conditions Nos. 1 & 2 of his appointment letter, dated 08.07.1994, which were contrary to the prevailing UGC Regulations.
(ii) Also prayed for directing the respondent authorities to release his arrear salary from the date of his appointment dated 08.07.1994.
Background Facts:-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of this present petition, are briefly stated as under:-
"The petitioner, namely, Baneswar Bezbaruah, had applied for the post of lecturer in Political Science Department of Madhya Kamrup College, Subha, under Barpeta district, pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.12.1992.
Accordingly, he had appeared before the interview board and on the basis of his performance in the interview, the Governing Body had resolved the appointment of the petitioner Page 3 of 30 and in pursuance of the said resolution, the Joint Director of Higher Education Department had issued the order dated 08.07.1994, approving the service of the petitioner as Lecturer in the department of Political Science in the said college, imposing some conditions in the appointment letter that (i) the petitioner will be entitled to enjoy the increments benefits in the UGC scale of pay only after obtaining M.Phil or Ph.D degree within 8 years and failing to which, his service will not continue and (ii) the petitioner shall not be eligible for senior scale/selection grade scale of pay till he fulfill the conditions as laid down in the UGC schemes.
Thereafter, during the service period of the petitioner, in the year 2007, he had completed his M.Phil degree and the respondent No. 2, vide its order dated 03.12.2011, allowed him to draw the UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 01.04.2008, as per the terms of the advertisement with date of next increment on 01.04.2009.
It is the contention of the petitioner that during the time of his appointment, the UGC's minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in deficit grants in aid colleges, was 55% marks in master degree, as adopted by the Higher Education Department and as he has acquired his minimum qualification, i.e. 55% marks in master degree, as per the UGC norms, adopted by the Higher Education Department, the Government of Assam, in the year 1978, had issued a direction Page 4 of 30 that the petitioner should have been given the full benefits of UGC scale of pay.
But, in spite of that, the Joint Director Higher Education Department approved his service, vide order dated 08.07.1994, with fixed pay @ Rs. 2,200/- with other allowances as admissible under the rule and subject to fulfillment of clearance of either M. Phil or Ph.D. decree within 8 years, and thereby deprived him from being elevated to the higher pay scale, which is absolutely illegal and violation of equal treatment to the petitioner along with the other similarly situated candidates and also violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this present petition with the aforementioned prayers.
4. The respondent No. 2, the Director of Higher Education Department has filed its affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken is that the petitioner was appointed vide order No. G(A)RC.5/92/153, dated 13.11.1992, with the following conditions:-
"(i) The incumbent will be entitled to enjoy incremental benefit in the UGC scale of pay of Rs.2200 - 4000/- p.m. only after obtaining M.Phil or Ph.D. Degree within 8 years failing which his service will not be continued.
(ii) The petitioner shall not be eligible for senior scale/ selection grade scale of pay Page 5 of 30 till he fulfills the conditions as laid down in the UGC schemes."
4.1. It is also stated that the petitioner had completed his M. Phil Degree from Vinayak Mission University on distance mode in the month of April, 2008 and upon receiving the certificate of M. Phil degree obtained by the petitioner, the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, vide letter No. AHE.192/2011/373, dated 22.11.2011, directed the Director of Higher Education Department to allow the petitioner to draw regular scale of pay from the date of acquiring full UGC qualification and accordingly, the DHE, vide order No. G(B)AC/Regu.92/2011/210, dated 03.12.2011, allowed the petitioner to draw UGC scale of pay, w.e.f. 01.04.2008.
4.2. It is also stated that vide order dated 04.01.2011, issued by the Director of Higher Education Department, the petitioner's pay was already fixed notionally @ Rs. 7,100/-, w.e.f. 01.01.1996, with DNI, on 01.11.1996, in the scale of pay Rs. 5725 - Rs. 11825/- per month, as per available records. But, after receipt of prayer petition, dated 08.01.2019, which was forwarded by the Principal, the Government of Assam in the Higher Education Department, vide letter No. ΑΗΕ.1194/2019/33, dated 26.05.2020, had approved fixation of pay in respect of the petitioner as under:-
"(i) Rs. 5725/- on 01.01.1996 with date of next increment on 01.01.1997 in the pay scale of Rs. 5725/- 175-250-7350-EB-250-8100-325-11025 1185/- allowing financial benefit with effect Page 6 of 30 from 01.04.2005 without any arrear as per OM No.FPC.16/99/Pt.II/69, dated 06.07.2005.
(ii) Rs. 21,130/- (Pay in PB = Rs. 15,230/- + GP = 5,900/-) on 01.01.2006 with the date of next increment on 01.07.2006 in the pay structure of PB-4 Rs. 12,000 - 40,000/- with Grade pay of Rs. 5,900/- and
(iii) Rs. 21,870/- (Pay in PB + Rs. 15,870/- as on 25.04.2008 with DNI on 01.07.2009 in the pay structure of Rs. 15,600 - 39,100/- with AGP of Rs. 6000/- (UGC)."
4.3. It is also stated that the fixation, mentioned at point Nos. (i) &
(ii) above, was made on the basis of State Revised Pay Scale of 1996 and point No. (iii) pertains to UGC Scale of pay. Further, as per letter dated 02.11.1982, issued by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam, to the Principal Secretary of all Aided Colleges, Revised UGC norms for College Teachers was mentioned as under:-
"Your attention is drawn to the last paragraph of the condition imposed by the UGC (and approved by State Govt.) that when a person is selected an appointment under a good academic record but not an M.Phil degree holder, he/she will have to obtain M. phil or a recognized degree beyond master level within 8 years of his/her appointment failing which he/she will not be able to earn future increment till he/she obtained that degree or give evidence of equivalent published work of high standard."Page 7 of 30
4.4. It is also stated that on 30.12.1988, another letter was issued by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam to the Principal Secretary of all Aided Colleges, wherein it is stated as under:-
"In pursuance of the decision of the Government, I am to inform you that the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of lecturers shall be Master's degree in relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and good academic record. It is to be noted that for Ph.D./M.Phil Degree holder's minimum qualifications as stated above is not relaxed. However, such Degree holders will get one advanced increment for M.Phil Degree and 3 advance increments for Ph.D. Degree holders in the initial scale of Rs. 2200 - 4400/- respectively at the time of first entry into the service."
4.5. Thereafter, on 19.09.1991, the UGC had issued a Notification, prescribing the minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer, Readers and Professors and subsequently, the said notification was partially modified in the year 1992, whereby the minimum qualification was:-
"(a) Good academic records with at least 55% of marks or equivalent grade in Master Degree level in the relevant subject and
(b) He has cleared the eligibility test for the Lecturer ship conducted by the UGC/ CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC."Page 8 of 30
4.6. Thereafter, UGC Regulations 1998 issued on 24.07.1998, wherein NET/SLET was made mandatory requirement for appointment of Lecturer in Colleges. But, Government of Assam notified that the NET/SLET is mandatory for appointment of Lecturer in Colleges throughout the State of Assam, vide its OM No. B(2)H408/99/41, dated 13.01.2000.
4.7. It is also stated that the service of the petitioner was approved on 08.07.1994, w.e.f. 13.11.1992, and thereafter, the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding imposition of conditions in his appointment letter and the condition of failure of acquiring M.Phil or equivalent degree, within 8 years, was already withdrawn as he acquired M.Phil Degree after long 16 years and after fulfilling the condition, the petitioner was given UGC scale of pay from date of acquiring M.Phil Degree on 01.04.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner's pay was also fixed notionally from 01.01.1996, on the prayer being made by him and after elapse of more than 15 years, now he is claiming that he is entitled to get UGC scale of pay from the date of his appointment.
5. The UGC, respondent No. 3, has also filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that vide notification dated 19.09.1991, the eligibility criteria to be appointed as a Lecturer has been fixed and the same are mandatory in nature. Another stand taken by the UGC is that the 2nd Amendment of UGC Regulations, 2006 clarified that NET shall remain compulsory requirement for the appointment of Lecturer for those with PG Degrees. However, the Page 9 of 30 candidates having M.Phil. degree, in concerned subject, are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only and as the petitioner obtained M.Phil. degree in December, 2007 and withdrawing UGC full pay scale from 01.04.2008, it seems to be appropriate as per the condition stated in Annexure No. 3 of the writ petition.
6. The Director of Higher Education Department, respondent No. 2, has also filed one additional affidavit, stating that the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Government of India, vide Notification No. F-1-21/87 U.I., dated 17.06.1987, had made it mandatory that minimum qualifications required for appointment to the post of Lecturers, amongst others, will be those prescribed by the UGC, which also prescribed that the candidate should have qualified in a comprehensive test to be specifically conducted for the purpose. This was followed by 9.0 UGC Regulations, 1991, regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges vide Notification No. F.1- 11/87(CPP), dated 19.09.1991, reiterating the requirement that the qualifications required for appointment to the post of Lecturers will be those prescribed by the UGC and that the State could prescribe a higher bench-mark for appointment to the post of Lecturer, but could not waive the requirement of following UGC norms.
6.1. It is also stated that the UGC Notification No. F.1-11/87(CPP), dated 19.09.1991, had been issued in exercise of power conferred by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) to Section 26, read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the said notification had Page 10 of 30 superseded previous notifications dated 13.06.1983, 19.02.1985 and 26.11.1985, and Schedule - 1 prescribed following qualifications in respect of the post of Lecturer:
SCHEDULE-1 (3) A Lecturer
(a) Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical Education, Foreign Language and Law.
Good academic record with at-least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university.
Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.
6.2. It is also stated that conditional approval for appointment was granted to the petitioner, as at the relevant time, candidates with NET/SLET qualification were not available, but without satisfaction of the UGC norms, full salary for the under qualified Lecturer, would not be justified.
7. It is to be noted here that the petitioner has filed affidavit-in- reply to the affidavit-in-opposition and additional affidavit filed by the Page 11 of 30 respondent No. 2, denying the statements and averments made therein.
Submissions:-
8. Referring to Annexure No. 3, the letter of the Joint Director of Higher Education Department, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Joint Director of Higher Education Department had imposed two conditions upon the service of the petitioner, i.e. (i) the incumbent will be entitled to enjoy incremental benefit in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200/- to Rs. 4000/- per month only after obtaining M.Phil or Ph.D. Degree within 8 years and failing to which, his service will not be continued and (ii) the incumbent shall not be eligible for senior scale/selection grade scale of pay till he fulfills the conditions as laid down in the UGC schemes.
8.1. Mr. Mahanta further pointed out that the said two conditions were not imposed in respect of one Bhoirab Chandra Das and Kailash Das, who was also appointed as Lecturer in the same college and as such, the petitioner is treated differently, though he is similarly situated with said Bhoirab Chandra Das and Kailash Das and on such count, the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated.
8.2. Referring to the Annexure No. 1 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, Mr. Mahanta submits that the UGC norms for being appointed as Lecturer of colleges are made applicable w.e.f. 13.01.2000. But, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated Page 12 of 30 08.07.1994, and as such, the OM dated 13.01.2000, cannot be applied in respect of the present petitioner.
8.3. Referring to Annexure-11, a letter addressed to the P.S. of Minister of Education, by the Director of Higher Education Department, dated 18.11.2002, U/O No. G(B) UGC 28/2002/9, Mr. Mahanta submits that the requirement of 55% in Master Degree and in Post Graduate for un-reserved category and clearance of NET/SLET is made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and requirement of 55% marks in Master Degree is made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1989 and as such, the stand being taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavits are illegal and arbitrary. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record, Mr. Mahanta submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to extend the benefits of the UGC scale of pay to the petitioner from the date of his appointment.
9. Per-contra, Mr. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, being respondent No. 2, submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition and on the ground of delay and leches; the present writ petition is not maintainable.
9.1. Mr. Upamanyu further submits that though some of the Lecturers have been given the UGC scale of pay from the date of their appointments, yet on the basis of the same, the petitioner cannot claim negative equality. Mr. Upamanyu also submits that the petitioner Page 13 of 30 had obtained M.Phil. degree in distance mode, which is not permissible also.
9.2. In support of his submission, Mr. Upamanyu has referred following decisions:-
(i) Dr. Jyotirupa Sarma v. State of Assam & Ors. [WP(C) No.5779/2016, dated 12.05.2023];
(ii) Ms. Deepsikha Das v. State of Assam & Ors.
[WP(C) No.5636/2010, dated 27.07.2017]; and
(iii) Smt. Anju Sharma v. State of Assam & Ors.
[WP(C) No.2708/2016, dated 27.03.2023].
9.3. To a pointed query of this Court, as to whether the aforementioned two conditions imposed in the appointment letter of the petitioner, are based on any Rules/Regulations of UGC or any other notification issued by the Government, Mr. Upamanyu submits that there are not such Rules/Regulations or any order/office memorandum.
10. On the other hand, Dr. Agarwala, learned standing counsel for the UGC, being respondent No. 3, also submits that there is also one Notification issued by the UGC on 19.09.1991, and the said notification was amended by making NET compulsory for being appointed as Lecturer for those with PG Degree. Dr. Agarwala further submits that the petitioner had obtained his M. Phil Degree in the month of Page 14 of 30 December, 2007 and withdrawing full pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.2008, without satisfying the requirement for granting UGC scale of pay.
10.1. To a pointed query of this Court, as to whether there is any timeline prescribed in the UGC regulation for completion of the M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree, Dr. Agarwala submits that there is no such time limit prescribed in the UGC Regulations.
Issues before this Court:-
11. In view of the rival contentions made in the pleading as well as the submission advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the issues to be decided in this petition are formulated as under:-
(i) What were the prevailing norms for being appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professors, in Grant-In-Colleges in Assam, as laid down by the UGC and Government of Assam, as on 08.07.1994, i.e. the date of appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in M.K. College?
(ii) Whether impositions of conditions in the appointment letter of the petitioner, dated 08.07.1994, i.e.-
(i) the incumbent will be entitled to enjoy incremental benefit in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200/- to Rs. 4000/- per month only after obtaining M.Phil or Ph.D. Degree within 8 years and failing to which, his service will not be continued and
(ii) the incumbent shall not be eligible for senior scale/selection grade scale of pay Page 15 of 30 till he fulfills the conditions as laid down in the UGC schemes.
and subsequent denial of the benefit of UGC scale of pay from the date of his appointment, on the basis of the said conditions are justified?
(iii) Whether on account of delay and laches, the claim of the petitioner be repudiated?
Findings of this Court:-
12. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the decisions referred by Mr. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, being respondent No. 2.
13. For the sake of convenience, let the issue No.(iii) be addressed first. It is the categorical contention of the Mr. Upamunya, the learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 2 that there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court by the petitioner and on account of such delay the petitioner cannot be granted the said benefit.
13.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 08.07.1994, on fixed pay with a condition that he will be entitled to enjoy the incremental benefits in the UGC Scale of pay only after obtaining M. Phil. or Ph.D. degree within 8 years. Thereafter, the petitioner had completed his M. Phil. degree in the year 2007.
Page 16 of 30Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had granted the UGC Scale of pay with effect from 01/04/2008, vide order dated 03.12.2011. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had filed his representation on 08.01.2019 only.
13.2. It is also not in dispute that on receipt of the said representation, dated 8/1/2019, the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department vide an order, No. ΑΗΕ.1194/ 2019/33, dated 26/5/2020, (Annexure-10) had given the pay protection to the petitioner on the basis of notional fixation of pay. He was not given the pay protection as per UGC scale, and the benefit of arrear was also not given. However, the contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to draw his salary as per the UGC pay Scale.
13.3. It is also not in dispute that he approached this Court only on 26.06.2023. And as such, there appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Upamunya, the learned standing counsel for the state respondents. But, it is well settled that in case of continuing cause of action, the delay and laches cannot be raised. Reference in this context can be referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569, wherein it has been held that right to salary is a right recognized under Article 300(A) and 21 of the Constitution of India and right to property is a human right also.
13.4. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below for ready reference:-
Page 17 of 30"12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court.
Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it."
13.5. Further, in the case of the State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is needless to say that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction.
13.6. In view of the aforesaid legal as well as factual matrix the submission of Mr. Upamunya, so far it relates to delay and laches, failed to mandate acceptance of this Court. Thus, issue No.(iii) is answered accordingly.
14. Now, adverting to the issue Nos. (i) and (ii), this Court finds that the petitioner was appointed on 08.07.1994, on fixed pay with a Page 18 of 30 condition that he will be entitled to enjoy the incremental benefits in the UGC Scale of pay only after obtaining M.Phil. or Ph.D. degree within 8 years. The conditions so imposed are already discussed in para Nos. 3 & 4, herein above. And indisputably, such conditions had not been imposed in case of one Shri Bhoirab Chandra Das and Shri Kailash Das, who were also appointed as Lecturer in the same College. It is the categorical contention of the petitioner that he had been treated differently, though he is similarly situated with Shri Bhoirab Chandra Das and Shri Kailash Das and on such count, the petitioner has contended that his right, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is violated.
14.1. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had completed his M. Phil. degree in the year 2007. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 had granted the UGC Scale of pay with effect from 01/04/2008, vide order dated 03.12.2011. The petitioner had filed his representation on 08.01.2019, upon which the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department, vide an order, No. ΑΗΕ.1194/ 2019/33, dated 26/5/2020, (Annexure-10) had given the pay protection to the petitioner on the basis of notional fixation of pay. He was not given the pay protection as per UGC scale, and the benefit of arrear was also not given.
14.2. Notably, no timeline has been prescribed in the UGC regulation for completion of the M. Phil./Ph.D. Degree. Dr. Agarwala, the learned standing counsel for the respondent UGC, has clarified the same to a query put by this Court at the time of hearing.
Page 19 of 3014.3. It is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the benefit given to similarly situated persons shall be extended to all such persons who are similarly situated. Reference in this context can be made to the following decisions:-
(i) State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747;
(ii) State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 14.4. It is to be noted here that in the case of C. Lalitha (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to.
14.5. And in the case Arvind Kumar Srivastava (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-Page 20 of 30
"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-
recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.Page 21 of 30
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
14.6. In that view of the matter, treating the petitioner differently on the ground of the conditions being imposed in his appointment letter by the respondent authorities and denying the benefits to him from the date of his appointment appears to be arbitrary.
15. Further, a perusal of the Annexure-11 of the petition indicates that on 01.01.1989, the States' relax norms for being appointed to the Page 22 of 30 post of Lecturer was only 55% marks in Master Degree. Said Annexure also indicates that since 01.01.1996, the minimum qualification for being appointed as teachers in Grant-In-Aid Colleges was as under:-
(i) 55% marks in Post Graduation for unreserved category
(ii) Clearance of NET/SLET, and a. Minimum of 50% marks in Post Graduation for SC/ST.
b. Clearance of NET/SLET.
15.1. It is worth mentioning in this context that the petitioner, in paragraph No.12 of his petition, had made a specific contention that he was appointed on 08/07/1994, and at that time the UGC minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in deficit grants in aid colleges was 55% marks in master degree only, as adopted by the Higher Education Department and to that effect one letter No. G(B).UGC/28/2002/9 dated 18/11/2002 (Annexure-11) communicated by the Director of Higher Education, Assam to the Hon'ble Minister of Education, Assam. And his further contention is that while the Joint Director of Higher Education, Assam had approved his service as Lecturer in the department of Political Science in M.K. College, vide Order No. G(A) AC.26/90/173, dated 8/7/1994 wrongly imposed the condition that he will be entitled to enjoy the incremental benefits in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-PM only after obtaining M. Phil or Ph.D. degree within 8 years failing which his service will not be continued and the petitioner shall not be eligible for senior Page 23 of 30 scale/selection grade scale of pay till he fulfills the conditions as laid down in the UGC schemes which were not at all acceptable as he had acquired the minimum qualification i.e. 55% marks in his master degree in Political Science.
15.2. It is also to be noted here that the contention so made by the petitioner in the paragraph No.12, and also the Annexure-11 of the petition, is not specifically denied by the respondent authorities. That being so, and in view of the doctrine of non-traversal, the factual averment in para No.11 of the petition, by the respondents, is deemed, admitted.
15.3. It also appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, especially from paragraph No.11 that as per UGC Regulations 1998 issued on 24.07.1998, NET/SLET is a mandatory requirement for appointment of Lecturer in Colleges. But, Government of Assam notified NET/SLET as mandatory requirement/ eligibility criteria for appointment of Lecturer in Colleges throughout the State of Assam vide its OM No. B (2)H408/99/41 dated 13.01.2000 and the said Notification is annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-1 in his reply to the affidavit in opposition filed by respondent No.2.
15.4. Mr. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 was specifically directed by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2025, to obtain instruction in respect of Annexure-11 at page 42 of the writ petition, to file an affidavit, indicating therein whether the recruitment that were made across the State in various Page 24 of 30 deficit grants-in-aid colleges, were made strictly in accordance with the norms laid down by the UGC vide its notification dated 19.09.1991, in view of the order of this Court dated 06.01.2025, but, the respondent No.2 had made no reference to the Annexure-11 of the writ petition in the said affidavit and willfully avoided to make any comment in respect of the same. And as such, Mr. Mahanta submits that the willful silence in respect of Annexure-11 of the petition, amounts to admission of the facts that at the relevant time i.e. at the time of appointment of petitioner, the UGC Norms was 55% in Master Degree and in that view of the matter imposing the condition in his appointment letter and depriving him of the UGC scale of pay is illegal and arbitrary and the same warrants interference of this Court.
15.5. This Court has considered the submission of Mr. Mahanta in the light of the facts and circumstances on the record and finds sufficient force in the same. Though, as per UGC Regulations 1998 issued on 24.07.1998, NET/SLET is a mandatory requirement for appointment of Lecturer in Colleges, but, the Government of Assam notified NET/SLET as mandatory requirement/eligibility criteria for appointment of Lecturer in Colleges throughout the State of Assam vide its OM No. B (2)H408/99/41 dated 13.01.2000. Further, in view of the letter No. G(B).UGC/28/2002/9, dated 18/11/2002 (Annexure-11) of the Director of Higher Education, Assam the UGC minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in deficit grants in aid colleges was 55% marks in master degree only.
Page 25 of 3015.6. This Court has also taken note of one Office Memorandum, No. AHE.101/2013/Pt/139, dated 7th February, 2014, issued by Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department exempting M. Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D., who have been appointed as Assistant Professors/Librarians between 24.12.1998 to 13.01.2000, in the Degree Colleges of Assam. And the Office Memorandum reveals that the UGC's guideline were notified by the Higher Education Department vide OM No.8(2)H.408/99/41 dated 13.01.2000, for implementing the UGC guideline for all Colleges and Institutions of the State. And in view of the same and with reference to the provision of 4(3), of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 and amended Act, 2012 & 2013, Govt. in Higher Education Department has decided to exempt the Assistant Professors/Librarians, who were appointed by the College Authority/Governing Body of the Colleges between 24.12.1998 to 13.01.2000, from having M.Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification, if they were otherwise qualified as per UGC qualifications required then.
15.7. The Office Memorandum is quoted herein below for ready reference:-
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR: GUWAHATI-6 No. AHE 101/2013/Pt/139 Dated Dispur, the 7th February, 2014.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM Page 26 of 30 Sub: Exemption of M.Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D who have appointed as Assistant Professors/Librarians between 24-12-1998 to 13- 01-2000 in the Degree College of Assam.
It has come to the notice of the Government of Assam in Higher Education Department that there are number of Assistant Professors/Librarians of the Venture Degree Colleges and in Provincialised Colleges of Assam who were appointed without M. Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualifications by the College Authority/Governing Body of the Colleges after 24-12-1998. They have been rendering their services during their respective Colleges since then.
In this regard it may be pointed out that the University Grants Commission has notified, the guideline for revision of pay scale of teachers/librarians' and requirement qualification for recruitment of a lecturer/librarian vide F.3-1/94(PS) dated 24-12-1998.
As per UGC guideline, the minimum requirement. of qualification is good academic record with 55% of marks in Master Degree having qualifying NET/SLET with effect from 24-12-1998.
But, the UGC's guideline were notified by the Higher Education Department vide OM No.8(2)H.408/99/41 dated 13- 01-2000 for implementing the UGC guideline for all Colleges and Institutions of the State.
In view of the above and with reference to the provision of 4(3), of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 and amended Act, 2012 & 2013 Govt. in Higher Education Department has decided to consider, the Assistant Professors/Librarians who were appointed by the College Authority/Governing Body of the Colleges between 24-12- 1998 to 13-01-2000 as qualified exempting them from M.Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification, If they were otherwise qualified as per UGC qualifications required then.Page 27 of 30
The Director of Higher Education, Assam shall ensure the proposals are proposed only in case Principal, Teaching Faculties and Non-Teaching Staff Members of the Colleges who possess the requisite qualification as per the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 and amended. Act, 2012 & 2013. No persons Le. Principal, Teaching & Non Teaching staff of any such Colleges who do not possess the requisite qualification coming under the purview of the above mentioned Act shali be considered and which has to be totally examined by the Director of Higher Education, Assam.
Sd./-(H.K. Sharma, IAS) Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department.
15.8. Thus, from the Annexure- 11, and also from the aforesaid Office Memorandum, dated 7th February, 2014, the minimum UGC qualification for being appointed as teachers in deficit grants in aid colleges, as on 08.07.1994, i.e. the date of appointment of the petitioner was 55% marks in Master Degree. Though, as per UGC guideline, the minimum requirement of qualification is good academic record with 55% of marks in Master Degree having qualifying NET/SLET with effect from 24.07.1998, the Government in Higher Education Department, with reference to the provision of 4(3), of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 and amended Act, 2012 & 2013, Government has decided to exempt the Assistant Professors/ Librarians who were appointed by the College Authority/Governing Body of the Colleges between 24-12-1998 Page 28 of 30 to 13.01.2000, from having M.Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification, if they were otherwise qualified as per UGC qualifications required then.
15.9. The Issue No. (i), as formulated by this Court herein above stands answered.
15.10. Indisputably, the petitioner was appointed on 08.07.1994, and at that time the minimum UGC qualification for being appointed as teachers in deficit grants in aid colleges, was 55% marks in Master Degree. And indisputably, also the petitioner possessed the same. And that being so, depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the UGC scale of pay from the date of his appointment, i.e. 08.07.1994, imposing the condition that (i) the incumbent will be entitled to enjoy incremental benefit in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200/- to Rs. 4000/- per month only after obtaining M. Phil or Ph.D. Degree within 8 years and failing to which, his service will not be continued and (ii) the incumbent shall not be eligible for senior scale/selection grade scale of pay till he fulfills the conditions as laid down in the UGC schemes, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same warrants interference of this Court.
16. In view of above factual and legal matrix, the Issue No. (ii), as formulated herein above has to be answered in negative and accordingly, the same stands answered.
17. I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also by Mr. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, being respondent No. 2. There is no quarrel at the Bar about the proposition Page 29 of 30 of law laid down in the aforementioned decisions. But, in order to decide the issues involved in the present petition, reference to all those decisions are found to be not necessary, except what has been discussed herein above.
Conclusion:-
18. In the result, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit of UGC scale of pay to the petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. 08.07.1994.
19. Let the aforementioned exercise be carried out within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within 2 (two) weeks from today.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page 30 of 30