Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[5] In W.P(C) No.379 of 2024, the petitioner, Sri Piyush Singh was also engaged in pursuance to the same advertisement dated 27.10.2017 as Assistant Professor (Electronics & Communication Engineering) vide offer of engagement bearing No.F.1(4)/TEQUIP-III/TIT/2017/1452-1453 dated 15.10.2018 with similar terms and conditions like above said two petitioners.

[6] In W.P(C) No.380 of 2024, the petitioner, namely, Sri Prasenjit Debnath, was engaged as Assistant Professor (Civil Engineering) under the same advertisement on contractual basis vide order bearing No.F.1(4)/TEQUIP-III/TIT/2017/1390-1391 dated 28.09.2018 with similar terms and conditions. [7] In W.P(C) No.381 of 2024, the petitioner, namely, Sri Tamar Das was engaged as Assistant Professor (Computer Science & Engineering) under the same advertisement on contractual basis vide offer of engagement No.F.1(4)/TEQUIP- III/TIT/2017/1392-1393 dated 28.09.2018 with similar terms and conditions.

[15] Mr. K. De, learned Addl. GA addresses his argument that the engagement of the petitioners were temporary in nature which was reflected in the advertisement itself. Their engagement as per the advertisement was purely on contractual basis up to the period of 03 years or up to the end of project period whichever is earlier and was non-renewable. Even after expiry of such project period when their engagement were extended from time to time, Mr. De, learned Addl. G.A argues that in every such engagement letter, it was specifically mentioned that they would not claim any future benefit of regularization in connection with these engagements. Mr. De, learned Addl. GA also relies on one written undertaking given by each of the petitioners that their engagement was purely project related engagement and it did not constitute any kind of employment or creation of additional teaching post. Mr. De, learned Addl. GA therefore, submits that the petitioners are now estopped from claiming regularization of their services when by an agreement they entered into such engagement consciously and knowing fully well that their engagement was purely for a temporary period. Learned Addl. GA also submits that the letter of MHRD dated 25.03.2019 was neither directory nor mandatory, rather it was simply a request made to the State Government for absorption of the petitioners in the service and it is the prerogative of the State to decide asto whether they are to be absorbed against regular post or not. Learned Addl. GA also submits that the petitioners are similarly not entitled to get the emoluments at par with the regular Assistant Professors on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" inasmuch as their selection process was totally different from the selection process of regular Assistant Professor. According to Mr. De, learned Addl. GA, all the petitioners were engaged on the basis of only oral interview whereas for recruitment against regular post, one is required to qualify the written examination conducted by Tripura Public Service Condition. Mr. De, to support his contentions, rely on the following decisions:

High Court also passed the order of regularization on agreement with the state respondents in this case. Taking note of all these factors, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed the order that services of such temporary teachers, who had worked as such for three years, including the break, should not be terminated and they should be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise.
Discussions and Decision [25] The petitioners have come forward with two prayers-
firstly, for regularization of their services as Assistant Professor and secondly or alternatively, for their pay at par with regular Assistant Professor on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The court has to consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity between the holders of two posts.‖ [38] The pleadings of the petitioners, in the present cases in hand, are bereft of sufficient particulars to compare them with the regular Assistant Professor for the purpose of applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. There are only few bald statements made in the pleading that the duties and nature of work petitioners are indistinguishable from permanent posts and they also possess similar qualification like regular Assistant Professors. But such assertions are not sufficient enough to apply principle of equal pay for equal work and to grant them regular pay scale of a Assistant Professor recruited through a regular process of selection as per the recruitment rules. Moreover, it also appears at the first blush that the recruitment procedure of the present petitioners and the recruitment procedure of regular Asstt. Professors are quite different.