Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 54 (GAU)

BUDDHADEB BHATTACHARJEE v. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY

2017-01-10

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, Ms. R. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Government of Assam, for respondent No.4, Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, University Grants Commission, for respondent No.5 and Mr. D.K. Roy, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of recommendation dated 30.08.2013 of a Six-Member-Committee, headed by the respondent No. 3, recommending that respondent No. 6 is senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Professor, Department of Physics, Gauhati University. Further prayer made is for a direction to the respondents to provide benefit of past service, i.e., service rendered by the petitioner before entering into the service of Gauhati University for the purpose of determining his seniority. 3. According to the petitioner, he initially joined as Lecturer in the Department of Physics, Karimganj College, on 22.12.1994. Thereafter, following his selection, he joined as Lecturer in the Physics Department, Gauhati University on 29.08.1996. According to the petitioner, as per University Grants Commission Regulations of 1998, he is entitled to get the benefit of past service counted for the purpose of career advancement. In the course of his service in the Gauhati University, petitioner was granted senior scale and, thereafter, selection grade scale of pay. 4. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader on 10.08.2005 on the basis of resolution of the Executive Council dated 23.07.2005. However, petitioner contends that he was entitled to promotion to the post of Reader on 22.08.2003. Be that as it may, after serving as Reader, petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor w.e.f. 10.08.2011. 5. In so far respondent No. 6 is concerned, she entered service of Gauhati University on 01.08.1996 as Lecturer in Physics. She was also granted senior scale as well as selection grade scale of pay. Like the petitioner, she was promoted to the post of Reader on 10.08.2005 and, thereafter, to the post of Professor on 10.08.2011. 6. When the dispute arose for determination of inter-se-seniority between petitioner and respondent No.6, it appears that a committee was constituted with the following members:- (1) Mr. U.C. Das - Registrar. (2) Mr. D. Chakraborty - Treasurer. (3) Mr. A. Bhattacharya - Deputy Treasurer. (4) Ms. 6. When the dispute arose for determination of inter-se-seniority between petitioner and respondent No.6, it appears that a committee was constituted with the following members:- (1) Mr. U.C. Das - Registrar. (2) Mr. D. Chakraborty - Treasurer. (3) Mr. A. Bhattacharya - Deputy Treasurer. (4) Ms. J. Talukdar - Law Officer. (5) Mr. A. Sarma - Superintendent of Audit Branch (6) Mr. R. Sarma - Superintendent of Establishment Branch. 7. The aforesaid Committee in its meeting held on 30.08.2013, after considering the provisions of Clause 14 of the Gauhati University Conduct Rules, 1984, and also after considering the service particulars of the petitioner, vis-a-vis, respondent No. 6, recommended that respondent No. 6 is senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Professor. 8. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed, seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 9. This Court by order dated 06.01.2015, had issued notice and passed an interim order directing the respondents not to act upon the impugned recommendation dated 30.08.2013. While passing the interim order, this Court observed as under:- "The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the determination of the inter-se seniority of Lecturers/Teachers of the University is the function of the Executive Council as provided for in Section 13(f) of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 but the inter-se seniority dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent is illegally decided by a committee consisting of six members under the Chairmanship of Registrar of the University, which is contrary to the existing law. The petitioner has a prima facie case." 10. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e., Gauhati University and its authorities have filed a common affidavit, justifying the recommendation made. Respondent No. 6 has also filed a detailed affidavit contending that she is senior to the petitioner and, therefore, recommendation of the Six-Member-Committee does not suffer from any error or infirmity. In her affidavit, respondent No. 6 has given details of her service career to support her claim of seniority. 11. Petitioner has filed reply affidavits to the affidavits filed by the above respondents. 12. Though detailed submissions have been made by Mr. Purkayastha, Mr. L.P. Sharma and Mr. In her affidavit, respondent No. 6 has given details of her service career to support her claim of seniority. 11. Petitioner has filed reply affidavits to the affidavits filed by the above respondents. 12. Though detailed submissions have been made by Mr. Purkayastha, Mr. L.P. Sharma and Mr. D.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Gauhati University and learned counsel for respondent No. 6 respectively, Court is of the view that the preliminary issue which is required to be decided before entering into the merits of the rival claims is whether recommendation dated 30.08.2013 of the Committee, headed by respondent No. 3, is legally sustainable? In other words, whether the said Committee had the competence and jurisdiction to make the recommendation dated 30.08.2013? 13. Section 12 of the Gauhati University Act, 1947, deals with Executive Council. It provides that Executive Council shall be the Executive Body of the University, comprising of the Members mentioned therein. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that it is a high-powered body, responsible for executive decision making in the University. Extensive powers are vested in the Executive Council, which includes power to appoint Officers, other than Chancellor and Vice Chancellor, teachers, clerical staff and other employees of the University and matters relating to their conditions of service. Therefore, Executive Council has the power to appoint teachers and to deal with matters relating to their conditions of service. Admittedly, seniority is a condition of service. This position is specifically mentioned in Section 13(f) of the aforesaid Act. Thus, if the Executive Council is the competent authority to deal with matters relating to conditions of service of teachers of the University, the exercise undertaken by the Six-Member-Committee, headed by respondent No. 3 on 30.08.2013 would be beyond the mandate of Section 13(f) of the Gauhati University Act, 1947. Such a Committee had no authority or competence to determine inter-se-seniority of 2 (two) Professors of the University, which is the function of the Executive Council. 14. If this is the finding arrived at, adjudication on the merits of the case would not be necessitated as the same would be decided by the competent authority, i.e., by the Executive Council. 15. In view of above, recommendation dated 30.08.2013 (Annexure M to the writ petition) is set aside and quashed. 14. If this is the finding arrived at, adjudication on the merits of the case would not be necessitated as the same would be decided by the competent authority, i.e., by the Executive Council. 15. In view of above, recommendation dated 30.08.2013 (Annexure M to the writ petition) is set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded to the Executive Council of Gauhati University to take a decision regarding inter-se-seniority of petitioner and respondent No. 6 in accordance with law. Since the matter has been hotly contested by the parties, the Executive Council may permit the 2 (two) parties to submit their claims in writing within such period as may be decided by the Executive Council and, thereafter, to take a decision as indicated above. Whatever be the decision, the same should be communicated to the respective parties. 16. Before parting with the record, it is made clear that Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. 17. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.