Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1078 (GAU)

Md. Saurhab Ali v. State of Assam

2015-08-25

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
JUDGEMENT : Heard Mr. DK Saikia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are represented by Mr. M Choudhury, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Higher Education. The learned counsel representing the Kharupetia College (respondent No.3) is not present in Court. 2. Although grievances are common in both the cases, this is the 3rd Writ Petition for Md. Saurhab Ali, who has filed the WP(C) 3803/2008, whereas the other petitioner Md. Shah Alam has approached the Court for the first time through the WP(C) 610/2010. The two petitioners joined the Kharupetia College in different capacities and eventually Md. Shah Alam was appointed as LDA on 4.9.1990 and the petitioner Md. Saurhab Ali was also posted as LDA on promotion on 31.5.1990. 3. While the two petitioners were serving as LDAs, the Arts Stream of the Kharupetia College was brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid w.e.f. 25.3.1998 along with 18 other colleges, through the Govt. Notification dated 20.8.1998 (Annexure-C). This was followed by the sanctioning of teaching and non-teaching posts in the Arts Stream of the colleges, through the communication dated 17.9.1998 (Annexure-D). Initially 5 posts of LDAs were sanctioned for the Arts Stream in the Kharupetia College but subsequently only 3 LDAs posts were sanctioned and thus the service of three senior most LDAs were provincialised. 4. The petitioners herein were at seniority position 4th and 5th amongst the LDAs and that is how they could not secure the benefit of provincialisation of service since only 3 posts were sanctioned. Then one of the aggrieved LDAs i.e. Md. Saurhab Ali filed the WP(C) No.823/2000, where he contended that the decision to reduce the sanctioned posts of LDAs to three from the originally intended five, was unjustified. However the learned Court noted that since the number of students in the Kharupetia College as on 25.3.1998 (when the college was brought under the grants in aid scheme), was only 646 and according to the prescribed student staff ratio in the Govt. Guidelines, five LDAs for the Arts Stream of the Kharupetia College, is not justified. Accordingly the first WP(C) No.823/2000was dismissed on 29.5.2002 (Annexure-G) with the observation that if the students enrolment increases, the petitioner can apply for sanctioning of additional post. 5. The same petitioner (Md. Guidelines, five LDAs for the Arts Stream of the Kharupetia College, is not justified. Accordingly the first WP(C) No.823/2000was dismissed on 29.5.2002 (Annexure-G) with the observation that if the students enrolment increases, the petitioner can apply for sanctioning of additional post. 5. The same petitioner (Md. Saurhab Ali) filed the 2nd case i.e. the WP(C) 544/2005, where it was projected that the students’ strength in the college has increased considerably and accordingly prayer was made for sanctioning of additional posts of LDAs for the college. But as contrary enrolment figures were projected by the Principal and the claimant and the Court was unable to decide how many students were enrolled in the Arts Stream of the Kharupetia College, a simple direction was issued to the Director of Higher Education (DHE), Assam to consider the matter afresh, by taking into account the students’ strength. Accordingly the 2nd case was disposed of on 3.12.2007 (Annexure-J) by directing a fresh decision by the authorities, within 3 months of the Court’s order. 6. In pursuant to the direction given in the WP(C) 544/2005 and the petitioner’s representation, the DHE re-examined the matter and after noticing the enrolment of students to be 642, from the College Principal’s communication(s) of 6.10.2007 and 1.3.2008 respectively and applying the norms specified in the guideline of 25.1.1968, the claim for sanctioning additional posts of LDA in the Kharupetia College was found to be unjustified and thus the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the DHE, through the impugned order dated 4.3.1998 (Annexure-K). 7. Aggrieved by the above decision of the DHE, the 3rd Writ Petition is now filed by Md. Saurhab Ali and he is joined this time by his senior LDA colleague Md. Shah Alam, through the WP(C) 610/2010. As both cases raise common grievances and the matters have been heard analogously, the following order is passed in both the cases. 8. The sanctioning of posts in colleges is to be made in the ratio prescribed by the DHE’s guidelines of 25.1.1968 and the guideline is annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the DHE in the WP(C) No.3803/2008. According to the norms, where the enrolment of student in a college varies between 501—700, two posts of LDAs are justified and when the enrolment is between 701—1000, three posts of LDAs is to be sanctioned. According to the norms, where the enrolment of student in a college varies between 501—700, two posts of LDAs are justified and when the enrolment is between 701—1000, three posts of LDAs is to be sanctioned. In the Kharupetia College, three posts of LDA were sanctioned in 1998 and the issue to be considered is whether a 4th/5th post of LDAs is justified for the Kharupetia College. As the students strength is the relevant factor for such consideration, this Court on 28.4.2015 directed the departmental lawyer to produce the relevant records to verify the enrolment of students as on 4.3.2005 (the date of the impugned decision of the DHE) in the Arts Stream of the Kharupetia College. 9. In pursuant to the Court’s order, Mr. M. Choudhury, the learned standing counsel has produced the two letters sent by the College Principal on 6.10.2007 and 1.3.2008, which were made the basis of the impugned decision by the Director on 4.3.1998 (Annexure-K). According to the figures furnished by the Principal for the session 2007-08, there are 476 students at the graduate level and 166 at the secondary level and hence the total enrolment in the Arts Stream of the College is 642 for the relevant academic session. Under the DHE’s guideline of 25.1.1968, when the enrolment of students is between 501—700, only two posts of LDAs are envisaged but in the Kharupetia College, three LDAs are sanctioned in the year 1998. When we apply the ratio prescribed by the notified guideline, it is apparent that with student strength of 642 (session 2007-08), the 4th/5th posts of LDA is not at all justified in the Kharupetia College. But of course sanctioned posts can be increased in future if the enrolment in the Arts Stream of the College justifies the same. But here one must be cautioned that the students’ strength in the Science and the Commerce streams are not relevant, as only the Arts Stream of the College is brought under the grants-in-aid scheme so far. 10. In view of the above discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, I see no infirmity with the order passed by the DHE on 4.3.1998 (Annexure-K), whereby claim for additional post in the Kharupetia College was rejected by the Director. Thus both cases are found devoid of merit and the same are dismissed. 10. In view of the above discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, I see no infirmity with the order passed by the DHE on 4.3.1998 (Annexure-K), whereby claim for additional post in the Kharupetia College was rejected by the Director. Thus both cases are found devoid of merit and the same are dismissed. However this order is not conclusive of the matter and in the event the enrolment of students in the Arts Stream justifies sanctioning of additional post in the Kharupetia College, the same would always be open for re-consideration by the sanctioning authority. With this observation, the cases are disposed of, without any order on cost.