Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: NET/SLET EXEMPTION in Nirmal Debnath vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 20 February, 2019Matching Fragments
12. As may be seen from the Office Memorandum dated 17.07.2004 abstracted above, adjustment of the Teachers from a non-sanctioned post to any other sanctioned post in another department is with a condition that the Teacher concerned, should qualify NET/SLET Page No.# 10/14 within 2 (two) years and failing which, the service of the Teacher will be discontinued. As for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not qualified NET/SLET and he claims exemption in view of having completed M. Phil degree. However, from a perusal of the order dated 06.01.2011 by which he was regularized in service, there is a clear pre-condition that he should get himself qualified in NET/SLET within 2 (two) years from the date of approval of his appointment. The petitioner accepted the order without any protest and therefore, it will be incumbent on his part to abide by the conditions of his regularization. As can be seem from the prayer of the petitioner, Office Memorandum dated 17.07.2004, which is the basis for his regularization in service, has not been put to challenge and therefore, the question is whether in absence of such a challenge, he can claim an exemption from having NET/SLET. As earlier pointed out by Mr. K. Gogoi, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1228/2015 (Arabinda Kumar Sarma & 26 Ors. Vs. State of Assam & 3 Ors.) vide Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2018 held that failure on the part of the petitioners therein to challenge the Office Memorandum dated 17.07.2004, a challenge only on the off-shoot of the original Office Memorandum dated 17.07.2004 will be of no help to the petitioners. Consequently, claim for exemption from NET/SLET by the petitioners was rejected. The decision in my considered view will also apply to the petitioner in the present case as well. Likewise, in so far as the claim towards UGC pay scale is concerned, the petitioner cannot be treated differently and the decision taken in Arabinda Kumar Sarma & 26 Ors. (Supra) will also apply to his case. That being said, there will no necessity to dwell upon the issue differently. The authorities relied upon by the rival counsels also need not be gone into.
13. Paragraph Nos. 19 to 23 of Arabinda Kumar Sarma & 26 Ors. (Supra) being relevant, they are abstracted herein below for ready reference-
Page No.# 11/14 "19. In view of the above and the fact that the petitioners have not made a challenge to the O.M dated 17.07.2004, the petitioners cannot claim exemption from not acquiring the qualification of NET/SLET. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside Condition No. 3 of the order dated 22.01.2015 cannot be granted and accordingly the said prayer is rejected. However, this Court finds that while Condition No. 3 of the order dated 22.01.2015 has given only a 2 year time period to the petitioners to obtain NET/SLET qualification, the persons who were provincialized as Assistant Professors vide the orders dated 20.01.2014 etc, have been given 5 years time to obtain NET/SLET from the date of their regularization order in pursuance to the provisions of the 2011 Act. The State should give equal treatment to its employees and as the petitioners herein and those persons who have been provincialised as Assistant Professors vide the orders dated 20.01.2014 etc, are in the same grade and having the same set responsibilities and duties, the petitioners herein should have also been given a 5 year time period for acquiring NET/SLET. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and equity, this Court directs that the State respondents to grant the petitioners herein, another 3 years beyond the 2 years period given under Condition No. 3 of the order dated 22.01.2015, for acquiring NET/SLET. Consequently, in so far as the O.M dated 17.07.2004 and condition No. 3 of the order dated 22.01.2015 does not provide for a period beyond two years for acquiring NET/SLET, a corrigendum or new notification should be issued by the State respondents extending the time period of 2 years given for acquiring NET/SLET to five years.