Tripura High Court
Dr. Manabendra Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 16 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 TRI 124
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 1391/2019
Dr. Manabendra Debnath,
Village- Dhaleswar, Road No-3,
P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East, Agartala,
District : West Tripura
-----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Tripura ,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
District : West Tripura
2.The Director of Higher Education,
Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala
3.The Secretary cum Commissioner,
Finance Department
New Secretariat Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District : West Tripura
4.University Grants Commission,
represented by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002
-----Respondent(s)
WP(C) 1392/2019 Dr. Alpana Bhattacharya, Village - College Tilla, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District : West Tripura Versus
1.The State of Tripura , represented by its Principal Secretary, Page 2 of 19 Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
2.The Director of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala
3.The Secretary cum Commissioner, Finance Department New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
4.University Grants Commission, represented by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 WP(C) 1393/2019 Dr. Jyotirmoy Sharma, resident of Village-Nutan Nagar, P.O. Airport, P.S. Airport Versus
1.The State of Tripura , represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
2.The Director of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala
3.The Secretary cum Commissioner, Finance Department New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Page 3 of 19 District : West Tripura
4.University Grants Commission, represented by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 WP(C) 1394/2019 Dr. Subir Sekhar Adhikari, presently residing at care of Sri Pulak Debbarma, Sankar Chowmohuni, Padma Kutir Lane, Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala Versus
1.The State of Tripura , represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
2.The Director of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala
3.The Secretary cum Commissioner, Finance Department New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
4.University Grants Commission, represented by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 WP(C) 1395/2019 Dr. Mousumi Gupta (Sengupta) Ramnagar, Road No.4, Before Sporting Club, P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala Versus Page 4 of 19
1.The State of Tripura , represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
2.The Director of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala
3.The Secretary cum Commissioner, Finance Department New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
4.University Grants Commission, represented by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 For petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv.
For respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A. Mr. B. Majumder, Asst. S.G. Date of Hearing : 29.01.2021 Date of Judgment & Order : 16.03.2021 __________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUDGMENT & ORDER All these writ petitions being WP(C)No.1391 of 2019 [Dr. Manabendra Debnath versus State of Tripura and Others], WP(C)No.1392 of 2019 [Alpana Bhattacharya versus State of Tripura and Others], WP(C)No.1393 of 2019 [Dr. Jyotirmoy Sharma versus State of Tripura Page 5 of 19 and Others], WP(C)No.1394 of 2019 [Subir Sekhar Adhikari versus State of Tripura and Others] and WP(C)No.1395 of 2019 [Dr. Mousami Gupta(Sengupta) versus State of Tripura and Others] are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the grievances of the petitioners as enumerated in the respective writ petitions arise from a common factual background. Even, the reliefs as sought are similar and there can be no distinction in the manner the submissions have been made.
2. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made his submission having referred to the averments and the documents placed in WP(C)No.1391 of 2019 [Dr. Manabendra Debnath versus State of Tripura and Others]. The brief facts, which are essential to appreciate the plea as raised in the writ petitions, can be noted at the outset. The petitioners were appointed as post graduate teachers in the scale of pay of Rs.5,310-24,000/- with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- on 26.06.2010. So far the writ petitioners of WP(C)No.1391 of 2019, WP(C)No.1392 of 2019 and the petitioners in WP(C)No.1395 of 2019 are concerned, they were appointed as the post graduate teacher on 10.06.2010. When the petitioners were appointed as the post graduate teacher by the memorandum dated 26.06.2010 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition being WP(C)No.1391 of 2019], in the said memorandum it had been clearly mentioned that "the aforesaid PGTs are posted to the colleges as indicated in column No.4 of the said memorandum." The post Page 6 of 19 against which the petitioners were entertained, according to the Directorate of Higher Education, those posts are purely personal posts and will be abolished as and when the incumbents retired from the services or resigned from the post. Before the petitioners were appointed as the post graduate teachers they were recruited as Part-Time Contract Teacher (PTCT) through a selection process as initiated by an advertisement which was published in the year 2001. As the petitioners were eligible for qualification as laid down in the said advertisement, they were participated in the selection and selected through the interview which was held on 26.12.2001. Accordingly, the petitioners were engaged as the PTCT and they were continuing in the said engagement. Thereafter, in the year 2010, the State of Tripura took a policy decision to regularise 292 PTCTs as post graduate teacher in the scale of pay of Rs.5,310-24,000/- with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- with other allowances by the memorandum dated 26.10.2010 or 10.06.2010.
3. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have candidly admitted that when the petitioners were appointed as the post-graduate teacher, they did not have the qualification for appointment as the Assistant Professor in the degree colleges as per the University Grants Commission‟s guidelines. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel having referred the notification dated 25.06.2019 [Annexure-8 to the lead writ petition], has contended that there are only three categories of posts in the cadre of teachers under state universities and colleges. Those Page 7 of 19 designation/posts are : Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. According to the petitioners, in the entire hierarchy, there is no such post called post-graduate teacher but the respondents have been running the degree colleges by the post graduate teachers, in serious contravention of the UGC guidelines. After the petitioners were recruited as the post graduate teachers, all the petitioners have acquired the required eligibility criteria and they are now eligible to be appointed as the Assistant Professor. In this regard, the petitioners have placed their testimonials in respect of their qualification in the writ petition. According to the petitioners, as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, they are all fit to be engaged as Assistant Professor and they are entitled to be absorbed in the said post and in the scale as revised by the said notification dated 25.06.2019. The petitioners have referred to the Press Release issued by the Press Information Bureau(PIB) dated 13.06.2018 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition being WP(C)No.1391 of 2019] whereby a fresh policy decision has been circulated by the UGC in the form of Regulations titled as Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education. In that Regulation, it has been declared that Ph.D. degree will be mandatory for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors in Universities and Colleges w.e.f 01.07.2021. We are, however, not concerned with recruitment of Assistant Professors in Universities. Even the Ph.D. degree has been made mandatory for promotion to Assistant Page 8 of 19 Professors (Selection Grade) in the colleges from 01.07.2021. The petitioners herein had filed a common representation on 07.04.2018 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition being WP(C)No.1391 of 2019]. In the said representation, the petitioners had recorded how they were appointed as the post graduate teachers in colleges and what was their expectation. The relevant part of the said representation dated 07.04.2018 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition] is extracted hereunder :
"(i) We are engaged as Part Time Contract Teachers at different degree colleges in Tripura since 1995.
(ii) We have rendered our long earnest services for the smooth running of the college education and fulfilled all academic needs of the Higher Education of Tripura.
(iii) We are appointed as Post Graduate College Teachers on 1st July, 2010, under Higher Education Department, Govt. of Tripura, by considering our long earnest services and posted at different degree colleges of Tripura. This was done by upgrading the Post Graduate Teachers' Fixed Pay Scheme of 2000 A.D.
(iv) We are appointed as PGT at a time when all the degree colleges were facing academic problems for the shortage of required number of Assistant Professors. Our appointment helped to reduce academic problems and the college began to run smoothly.
(v) We have acquired UGC specified requisite qualification (NET/SET/Ph.D) for Assistant Professorship during the process of our appointment as PGT and later on.
(vi) The Government of Tripura has appointed some Part Time Contract Teachers as Lecturers (Group-B Gazetted) in the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) in 2012.
(vii) The Part Time Contract College Teachers of Assam who have acquired requisite qualification (NET/SET/Ph.D) are appointed as Assistant Professors on the basis of promotion in 2014 by the Government of Assam. (A copy of the same is enclosed as the evidence).
(viii) It may be mentioned that UGC does not impose any restriction on age bar in the matter of appointment of Page 9 of 19 Assistant Professor. It is exclusively depends on State Government to give relaxation in age limit.
(ix) UGC bears the financial liabilities of Assistant Professors for the first five years. So, if the PGTs are appointed as Assistant Professors on the basis of promotion, the financial liabilities will be shifted from State Government to UGC for the first five years.
(x) We would like to say that we are teaching in the college having UGC requisite qualifications but not getting UGC pay scale. Moreover we are denied from the UGC specified designation also.
Under the above circumstances we fervently request you to consider the matter leniently. We hope and expect that you would be kind enough to appoint us as Assistant Professors by considering our long college teaching experience and UGC requisite qualifications and oblige.
Enclo :
1. Applicants' Academic and Service Records.
2. Reference of appointment of Assistant Professors from Part time Contract College Teachers in Assam."
Along with the said representation, details of the academic qualification and experience have been presented in a separate sheet. Those information are presented hereunder in a tabular form :
Sl. Name of the Reference Subject Year Date Present place of Educatio Date of No. applicant to the of of posting nal Birth writ joining joining qualifica petition as as PGT tion PTCT
1. Dr. Manabendra WP(C)No. Human 2002 01.07. Women‟s College Ph. D., 22.08.1976 Debnath 1391 of Physiology 2010 (Deputed to S.V. SET 2019 Mahavidyalaya, Mohanpur)
2. Dr. Alpana WP(C)No. Economics 1995 01.07. D.D.M. College, Ph.D. 13.09.1965 Bhattacharya 1392 of 2010 Khowai 2019
3. Dr. Jyotirmoy WP(C)No. Philosophy 1997 01.07. B.B.M. College NET, 10.09.1972 Sharma 1393 of 2010 Ph.D. 2019
4. Dr. Subir WP(C)No. Bengali 1996 01.07. B.B.M. College Ph.D. 04.04.1972 Sekhar Adhikari 1394 of 2010 2019
5. Dr. Mousumi WP(C)No. Mathematics 1997 01.07. R.T. College Ph.D. 13.10.1971 Gupta 1395 of 2010 (Deputed to (Sengupta 2019 Khumlung Polytechnic) Page 10 of 19
4. It is therefore apparent that there is no dispute on the day of filing the writ petition i.e. 03.12.2019, the petitioners were eligible to be recruited as the Assistant Professors in the colleges in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Academic Grade Pay (AGP)- Rs.6000/-.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they have been teaching in the colleges having all the qualifications required for recruitment of Assistant Professors, they ought to have been „designated‟ as the Assistant Professors from the date of their acquisition of qualification required for recruitment of Assistant Professor.
6. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are being perennially denied from being designated as the Assistant Professor as per the UGC norm inasmuch as, the petitioners have been serving in the colleges as the post graduate teachers but discharging all duties and responsibilities of Assistant Professor. In this regard, there is no dispute. Further, the petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to the academic grade pay of Rs.7,500/-.
That question does appear not material at this stage as such, such benefit is time bound. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that from the memorandum dated 07.06.2010 [Annexure-R/2 to the reply filed by the respondents] it would be apparent that out of 491 newly created posts 291 posts will be personal post. Those personal posts so created will Page 11 of 19 get abolished as and when incumbents retired from services or resigned from the post. It had been further provided in the said memorandum dated 07.06.2010 that PTCTs would be required to exercise an option to the effect that they were willing to be absorbed against the personal posts to be created without any past service benefits/seniority. For their recruitments, the UGC Guidelines was liberalised. But they have been discharging the same duties attached to the post of Assistant Professor in the government/General degree colleges. For recruitment in the post of Assistant Professor direct recruitment is the only method. Educational and other qualifications required for such recruitment for the general degree colleges, as we are concerned with, have been laid down in Assistant Professor, Govt. (General) Degree Colleges under Education(Higher Department) Recruitment Rules, 2010 as published by the notification dated 22.03.2010 [Annexure-R/3 to the reply filed by the respondents]. The essential qualifications as laid down in the said recruitment rules are as follows :
"ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS.
(i) Good academic record as defined by the concerned University with at least 55% of the marks or equivalent grade where grading system is practiced at the Master's degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University.
(ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidates should have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.
(iii) NET/SLET/SET shall not be required for such Masters Degree Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET Page 12 of 19 accredited test is not conducted subject to the conditions stipulated in the UGC Regulations, 2009 of 23.09.2009."
7. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents in order to repel the submissions of the Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted, having referred to Para-8 of the reply filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, that under Higher Education Department there were 661 sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors but due to non-availability of eligible candidates in a large number of post earmarked for SC, ST category remained vacant for long time. Considering the standard teacher/student ratio as laid down by UGC, the actual requirement of faculty was more than the existing faculty position. To fill up that gap, initially the PTCTs (Part-time College Teachers) were recruited and thereafter through the selection process from PTCTs the post graduate teachers for colleges were recruited. The petitioners are amongst those recruitees. He has categorically asserted that the post-graduate teachers are not the feeder post for promotion to Assistant Professor so there is no question of up-gradation or promotion from post-graduate teachers to the post of Assistant Professor. He has also admitted that PGT teachers were shown as the lecturers in the statement sent to UGC by Higher Education Department. Nowhere the respondents have denied that the petitioners are not eligible to be recruited as the Assistant Professor. But at the time of appointing them as the post graduate teachers, none of the petitioners had NET, SLET and SET qualification. Persons having less than 55 and 50% marks were Page 13 of 19 initially engaged as the contract-teachers following the guidelines called "Scheme for engagement of part time contract teachers in the Educational Institution of Tripura [Annexure-R/4 to the reply]". For recruitment of the post of Assistant Professors or equivalent grade NET or its equivalent grade viz. SLET/SET is essential. Hence, it cannot be held that the petitioners had the essential qualifications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. this is a special scheme and the post created under the scheme is personal to the incumbents and those posts will get automatically abolished with retirement or resignation of the incumbents. Even no retrospective claim of seniority can be claimed on the basis of the period of service and for purpose of absorption. The petitioners have accepted the offer of appointment in the post of post-graduate teachers having apprised themselves of the conditions as laid down in the offer of appointment. On the plea as raised in the writ petition that the petitioners be ungraded as Assistant Professor following the mode as laid down in the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, it has been contended that like the Assam Act, such up-gradation is not permissible for the very system as introduced by the said scheme.
8. Mr. B. Majumder, learned ASGI appearing for University Grants Commission (UGC) has contended that in respect of designating the post graduate teachers as Assistant Professor, there is no provision contained in the UGC Regulations under which clause-4.4.0 of UGC Page 14 of 19 Regulations, 2010 UGC has prescribed the minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professors. For purpose of reference the relevant para from the UGC Regulations 2010 is extracted hereunder :
"4.4.1 Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication.
i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.
ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.
iii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1, candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted."
9. In the rejoinder, the writ petitioners have stated that the petitioners are entitled to get the equal pay for equal work inasmuch as they have been indisputably discharging the same and equal responsibilities of a regular Assistant Professor, but they are getting less pay. That apart, the respondents, particularly the Higher Education Department at the time of absorbing the petitioner as post-graduate teacher ought to have designated them as Assistant Professor inasmuch Page 15 of 19 as the petitioners have the eligibility to be recruited as the Assistant Professor. That apart, attempt to recruit Assistant Professor in the year 2014 and 2015 had suffered a roadblock for intervention of this court. Thus, the petitioners have been treated iniquitously and unjustly. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed his reliance on Bhagwan Dass and Others versus State of Haryana and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 2049 where the apex court has observed that the no person can claim as a matter of right to be absorbed as permanent and regular employee from the inception, however they would be justified in claiming pay on the basis of the length of service computing from the date of their appointment depending on the length of service by disregarding the breaks which have been given for a limited purpose. However on considering the circumstances which is resembling to the present circumstance, the apex court had observed that we hope and trust that the State of Harayana will not show displeasure at the petitioners who have approached this Court in order to vindicate their right to claim equal pay and that service of no petitioner would be terminated except on reaching the age of superannuation of by way of appropriate disciplinary action, or on abandonment of the Scheme.
10. Even in Arindam Chattopadhyay and Others versus State of West Bengal and Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 152, the apex court had unequivocally enunciated the law as follows : Page 16 of 19
"13. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that although the appellants were recruited as ACDPOs, the State Government transferred and posted them to work as CDPOs in ICDS Projects. If this would have been a stopgap arrangement for few months or the appellants had been given additional charge of the posts of CDPO for a fixed period, they could not have legitimately claimed salary in the scale of the higher post, i.e., CDPO. However, the fact of the matter is that as on the date of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal, the appellants had continuously worked as CDPOs for almost 4 years and as on the date of filing of the writ petition, they had worked on the higher post for about 6 years. By now, they have worked as CDPOs for almost 14 years and discharged the duties of the higher post. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any material has been produced before this Court to show that the appellants have not been discharging the duties of the post of CDPO or the degree of their responsibility is different from other CDPOs. Rather, they have tacitly admitted that the appellants are working as full-fledged CDPOs since July, 1999. Therefore, there is no legal or other justification for denying them salary and allowances of the post of CDPO on the pretext that they have not been promoted in accordance with the Rules. The convening of the Promotion Committee or taking other steps for filling up the post of CDPO by promotion is not in the control of the appellants. Therefore, they cannot be penalised for the Government's failure to undertake the exercise of making regular promotions."
[Emphasis added]
11. In the resembling background of facts, the apex court in State of Punjab and Another versus Dharam Pal reported in (2017) 9 SCC 395 has approved the principle of Secy-cum-Chief Engineer versu Hari Om Sharma reported in (1998) 5 SCC 87 where the apex court had occasion to observe as follows :
"6..... If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. The Tribunal has noticed that the respondent has been working on the post of Junior Engineer I since 1990 and promotion for such a long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop-gap arrangement."Page 17 of 19
12. The said principle of quantum meruit has been lucidly expressed in Selvaraj versus Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Others reported in (1998) 4 SCC 291 in the following words :
"3. It is not in dispute that the appellant looked after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and his salary was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It is also true as stated in the counter- affidavit of Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs 1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but the appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said counter. However, in our view, these averments in the counter will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order and his salary was to be drawn during that time against the post of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in the pay scale of 1640-2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum meruit the respondents authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground."
[Emphasis added]
13. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the records as produced before this court, it is observed that the petitioners were not eligible to be recruited as Assistant Professor in the colleges when they were recruited as the post-graduate teacher and as such, their claim to designate them as the Assistant Professor from the day when they were appointed as the Page 18 of 19 post graduate teacher cannot be acceded to. According to the statements of the petitioners, they acquired the essential qualifications on the date shown against each of them in the table below :
Sl. The petitioner in the writ petition Date of acquisition of essential No. qualification to be recruited as the Assistant Professor.
1. Dr. Manabendra Debnath the 31.04.2012 petitioner in WP(C)No.1391 of 2019
2. Dr.Alpana Sharma the petitioner in 23.05.2018 WP(C)No.1392 of 2019
3. Dr. Jyotirmay Sharma the petitioner 21.06.2012 ion WP(C)No.1393 of 2019
4. Dr. Subir Sekhar Adhikari the 23.05.2018 petitioner ion WP(C)No.1394 of 2019
5. Dr. Mousumi Gupta (Sengupta) the 02.05.2018 petitioner ion WP(C)No.1395 of 2019
14. There is no dispute that on the dates as noted above [see the table], the petitioners are having all the qualifications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in colleges. Thus, on the basis of qualification, no separate class can be created. The petitioners cannot be deprived of the equal pay attached to the post of Assistant Professor and hence, the respondents are bound to follow the principle of quantum meruit in respect of pay of the petitioner. In other words, the petitioners are entitled to the higher pay attached to the post of Assistant Professor. Hence, the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with AGP Rs.6000/- [pre-revised], the pay scale mentioned in the recruitment rules for Assistant Professor, Govt. General Degree Colleges. The respondents shall pay the salary in the said Page 19 of 19 pay scale i.e. Rs.15,600 - 39,100 with AGP Rs.600 from the date of this judgment.
15. That apart, the respondents are directed to frame a scheme within a period of six months to absorb or designate the petitioners in the post of Assistant Professor in consideration of their long tenure of service in teaching in the general degree colleges as there is no blemish in respect of their competence and the service by discharging the duties of Assistant Professors in the Government degrees colleges for decades. For that purpose, the maximum age be relaxed. The respondents are further directed that within three months from the day of framing of the scheme the petitioners shall be considered for absorption or designation as Assistant Professor in the general degree colleges.
In terms of the above, these writ petitions stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Sabyasachi B