Gauhati High Court
Inamul Hoque Choudhury And 5 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 12 March, 2020
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010237272015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 4487/2015
1:INAMUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY and 5 ORS
S/O- LT. RAHMAN ALI CHOUDHURY, R/O VILL. and P.O.- SUTARGAON, P.S.-
BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST.- KAMRUP R, ASSAM, PIN- 781381.
2: MRINAL MEDHI
S/O- LT. PRASANNA MEDHI
R/O- NIJARPAR
ARJUN PATH
HOUSE NO. 32, CHANDMARI COLONY
GHY- 3, ASSAM.
3: ASHOK KR. DAS
S/O- LT. CHANDI CHARAN DAS
R/O VILL. and P.O.- SATPAKHALI
KAMRUP, ASSAM.
4: MARAMI CHOUDHURY
W/O- SRI RAMEN DUTTA
R/O- FLAT NO. 2, B-02
PANJABARI NEAR KALAKHETRA
P.O.- KHANAPARA
GHY- 36, ASSAM.
5: PINKUMONI BARMAN
S/O- LT. NAGENDRA NATH BARMAN
R/O- MILONPUR
MILIJULI PATH
HOUSE NO. 1
P.O.- BAMUNIMAIDAN
GHY- 21, KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
6: ABHIJIT KUMAR BEZBARUAH
C/O- ADHIR KUMAR SEAL
R/O- GAKTAPARA
Page No.# 2/5
W/NO. 8, P.S.- BILASIPARA
P.O.- HAKMA
DIST.- DHUBRI, PIN- 783348, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION HIGHER DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPTT.
DISPUR, GHY -6.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM, KAHILIPARA
GHY- 19
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N PATHAK
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
ORDER
Date : 12-03-2020 Heard Mr. D. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department, as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing for the respondents.
2. The matter pertains to the claim of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in various colleges during the period from 24.12.1998 to 13.01.2000 when the colleges were in venture stage. Subsequently, although the colleges were provincialised, the services of the petitioners were not provincialised and their posts were dropped on the ground that the petitioners did not possess NET/SLET qualification. According to the petitioners, the State of Assam, vide a Notification dated 13.01.2000 decided to implement the scheme making NET/SLET a mandatory requirement for being appointed as Page No.# 3/5 Lecturer/Assistant Professor and, since the petitioners had already been appointed prior to implementation of the aforesaid scheme they would be exempted from the requirement of possessing NET/SLET qualification. It is also case of the petitioners that the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department issued an Office Memorandum dated 07.02.2014 exempting NET/SLET qualification to the Lecturers/Assistant Professors who were appointed during the period from 24.12.1998 to 13.01.2000 and, accordingly, their posts could not have been dropped and their services ought to have been provincialised.
3. Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the petitioners for provincialisation, they have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of the writ petition, some subsequent developments had taken place, which are incorporated in paragraph 5 of the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioners on 20.11.2019, which reads as follows:
"5. The petitioners beg to state that it had come into their knowledge that in the Cabinet Memorandum of the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Deptt. regarding approval of promulgation of Ordinances and introduction of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) (Amendment) Bill, 2019, it had been resolved regarding the processing of services of 151 nos. of posts of Asstt. Professors/Librarians of difference newly provincialized colleges who were appointed in the colleges in between 24.12.1998 to 13.01.2000 as qualified by the UGC norms under the provision of the 2011 Act. It was further stated that since the new Act of 2017 had clearly specified the fulfillment of qualification criteria in term of the UGC 2010 Regulation, therefore the services of the teachers appointed in between 24.12.1998 to 13.01.2000 cannot be considered for provincialisation under the new Act. However, the UGC norms of 1998 were adopted by the State Govt. only on 13.01.2000 and this group of teachers joined their services prior to 13.01.2000. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Judicial Department opined that if the benefit of exemption in terms of the O.M. dated 07.02.2015 is not extended to the present group of employees that would be highly irrational and also that due to the delay on the part of the Deptt. members of the Association has been deprived of the benefit of provincialisation despite their cases were processed. The Page No.# 4/5 same view has also been obtained from the Personnel (B) Deptt. and Finance (EC-III) Deptt. of Govt. of Assam. Accordingly, as per the views of the Legislative Deptt., the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Deptt. prepared a Cabinet Memorandum which is awaiting for placing before the Cabinet."
5. Thus, according to the petitioners, there is certain move on the part of the State Government for provincialisation of services of the Assistant Professors who were appointed during the period from 24.12.1998 to 13.01.2000 and, in the event the State Government takes any favourable decision in that regard, the petitioners' case will also be considered for provincialisation.
6. On the other hand, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department submits that in any event the requirement of NET/SLET qualification cannot be ignored as it is a mandatory requirement prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in 1991. Referring to a Letter No. D.O. No. 8-7/2010-UI(A) dated 03.01.2010, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Mr. Gogoi further submits that it is also manifestly clear from the aforesaid letter that NET/SLET is mandatory requirement for being appointed as Assistant Professor. Mr. Gogoi has relied upon a judgement of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in WP(C) 4788/2011, which was disposed of on 07.02.2017 by holding that the requirement of NET/SLET cannot be exempted. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Division Bench is reproduced below:
"15. Under Clause 4.4.0 of the 2010 Regulation, besides possession of good academic record, a candidate must have cleared the NET conducted by the UGC or similar tests like SLET/SET accredited by the UGC and since the petitioners do not satisfy the prescribed qualification, they according to us, do not have any enforceable right to claim any direction for exemption.
16. The Court must not pass any order which will undermine the required standard of excellence in appointment of faculty members for higher education and therefore on the strength of pursuing M.Phil curriculum in distance mode, the quality of education cannot be allowed to suffer, through recruitment of aspirants, without possession of the required degree which reflect on their suitability and credentials for the job.
17. It is also necessary to take note of the decision of Central Government, Page No.# 5/5 communicated through the letter of 3.11.2010, in pursuant to the resolution of the UGC for exemption from NET requirement, to reject the resolution for exemption and specifying that NET/SLET was compulsory for teaching positions, as a part of the National policy for maintenance of standards in higher education. Therefore any dilution of standard by a Court order would surely undermine the nation' s interest and also the power given to the Central Government, under Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore we cannot but hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any exemption from the requirement of NET/SLET qualification."
7. In support of his submission, Mr. Gogoi has also relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Suseela & Ors. Etc. Etc. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors. Etc. Etc., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 129.
8. Be that as it may, this is an aspect which the respondent authorities can certainly examine and decide upon. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law by taking into consideration the above-mentioned Office Memorandum dated 07.02.2014 and in the light of the subsequent developments, which apparently took place, as pleaded by the petitioners in their additional affidavit referred to above, and pass an appropriate speaking order regarding the claim of the petitioners for provincialisation.
9. The exercise, as directed above, shall be undertaken and completed by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. It goes without saying that if the petitioners still remain aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondent authorities in terms of the above direction, they will be at liberty to approach this Court again by making appropriate application.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant