Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1639 (GAU)

Sanghamitra Barbora v. State of Assam

2018-11-24

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Non-appointment of the six writ petitioners despite being selected for appointment as Assistant Engineers (Civil) under the Irrigation Department out of the total 133 posts that was advertised to be filled up vide Advertisement dated 12.12.2013 by the Assam Public Service Commission (respondent No. 4) has prompted them to file the present writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. AK Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. B Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department who appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. C Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A Chamuah, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. Mr. NJ Khataniar, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 5. None appears for the respondent No. 7. 3. The brief facts of the case for disposing the writ petition may be narrated at the outset. The petitioners are holders of Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering and they responded to an Advertisement dated 12.12.2013 issued by the respondent No. 4 for filling up of 133 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Irrigation Department. The educational qualification that was prescribed besides other qualification was 3(three) years diploma in Civil Engineering from any institute recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). After participating in the selection process, the petitioners were amongst the successful candidates for the posts in question and their names and roll numbers appeared at serial No. 112, 116, 4, 63, 3 and 28 respectively in the select list prepared by the respondent No. 4. While the petitioners were expecting to be appointed to the posts, the Irrigation Department through the Deputy Secretary (E) to the Government of Assam to their surprise, issued a notification dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure-7), notifying that all successful candidates as recommended by the respondent No. 4 except the 11 candidates mentioned in the notification are to collect their respective appointment letters at the Appointment Distribution Programme scheduled to be held at the Assam Administrative College, Khanapara, Guwahati on 16.03.2017. As for the 11 candidates which included the petitioners, it was provided that their appointment letters will be issued on receipt of satisfactory enquiry report from the respondent No. 5. As for the 11 candidates which included the petitioners, it was provided that their appointment letters will be issued on receipt of satisfactory enquiry report from the respondent No. 5. Following the said notification, 117 selected candidates excluding the writ petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Irrigation Department vide Notification dated 16.03.2017. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Appearing for the writ petitioners, Mr. AK Sharma, the learned counsel submits that all the writ petitioners have obtained their Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering from universities recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and therefore, there was no reason for deferring their appointment. By referring to the list of Universities recognized by the UGC as on 11.02.2013, Mr. AK Sharma submits that the universities from where the petitioners have obtained their respective Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering are very much included in the list. The learned counsel by further referring to the communication dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure-6) made by the Under Secretary of the UGC to the petitioner No. 3 submits that it was clearly clarified that Universities and deemed Universities were not required to get the approval of the AICTE to start or offer courses in the field of engineering, technology and management. They are only required to maintain the norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE. 5. Mr. AK Sharma further refers to the communication dated 24.04.2017 annexed as Annexure-7 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners on 14.09.2017 written by the Assistant Director (P & AP) to the Deputy Secretary (E), Government of Assam, Irrigation Department and submits that it has clearly been clarified by AICTE that the verification of the educational qualification, certificates of Bachelor of Engineering/B.Tech degree obtained from Universities/Institutes was not under the purview of AICTE and therefore, verification of the degrees may be made from the concerned Universities/Institutes. He submits that the petitioners have enquired from the concerned Universities/deemed universities from where they have obtained Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering as to whether the University followed the norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE and in response to such queries, it was confirmed that the AICTE norms and standards were being followed. He therefore, submits that under the circumstance, there cannot be any ground for withholding the appointment of the writ petitioners. 6. Mr. He therefore, submits that under the circumstance, there cannot be any ground for withholding the appointment of the writ petitioners. 6. Mr. C Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel for the APSC (respondent No. 4) by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 on 15.09.2015 submits that against the Advertisement issued by the respondent No. 4 on 12.12.2013, as many as 1323 applications were received. The respondent No. 4 duly scrutinized the educational qualification and certificates submitted by each of the candidates including the writ petitioners and it was only thereafter that the candidates were allowed to participate in the selection process. The 11 applicants whose appointments were kept in abeyance vide notification dated 14.03.2017 including the petitioners were amongst those who were called for the interview and upon conclusion of the selection process, they were amongst those who are selected. He submits that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharathidasan University & Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors., reported (2001) 8 SCC 676 , the respondent No. 4 rightly made its recommendation. He submits that as per the Bharathidasan University & anr. (supra), the Apex Court has held that as per the AICTE Act, 1987, universities do not require prior approval of the AICTE in conducting engineering courses and therefore, when there are materials to show that the Universities/deemed Universities concerned are following the AICTE norms and guidelines, there is no reason for the Irrigation Department not to accept and act upon the recommendation of the respondent No. 4. Mr. C Baruah, the learned counsel further submits that in fact the respondent No. 4 earlier, in terms of its Advertisement dated 13.11.2013 for filing up of 13 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) under the Irrigation Department had made recommendations in favour of candidates who obtained Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Annamalai University amongst others and the Irrigation Department duly appointed the candidates concerned possessing Bachelors Degree from the said University against the posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). Therefore, there is no reason for the Irrigation Department to take a different view in respect of the 11 candidates which includes the writ petitioners. 7. Mr. Therefore, there is no reason for the Irrigation Department to take a different view in respect of the 11 candidates which includes the writ petitioners. 7. Mr. NJ Khataniar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 also by referring to the affidavit in opposition filed on 03.11.2017 by respondent No. 5 submits that although in view of the Apex Court's decision in Bharathidasan University (supra) that the approval of the AICTE for starting a course or programme in technical education may not be required but however, the Universities/deemed Universities are required to follow the norms and standards of AICTE and for which, the AICTE is to cause an inspection of such universities for ensuring the same. He submits that this requirement was duly published by the AICTE through its Member Secretary vide a public notice under Advertisement No. UB/04 (03)/2011 which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the affidavit of the respondent No. 5. The learned counsel also submits that the respondent No. 5 also communicated the aforesaid facts to the Irrigation Department vide letter dated 30.11.2017 under Memo No. TE (E) C-6/2017/7489 which is annexed as Annexure- A-4 to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 on 05.12.2017. 8. Mr. A Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 (UGC) also by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 18.06.2018 by the respondent No. 6 submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.12.2017, the UGC gathered information from the Universities concerned on the status of the degrees obtained by the petitioners and the UGC informed that the degrees obtained by the petitioners were in fact through a regular mode. He also submits that this Court in considering the case projected by the petitioners may take into consideration the latest decision of the Apex Court on the subject i.e. Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.. reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468 . 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the decisions relied upon by the parties. 10. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.. reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468 . 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the decisions relied upon by the parties. 10. Besides the requirement as to whether the Universities from which the writ petitioners have obtained their Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering is a recognized university by the AICTE or not, there is admittedly no impediment caused by other aspects in appointing them Assistant Engineers (Civil) under the Irrigation Department. From the public notice issued by the AICTE which was pursuant to the Judgment rendered in Bharathidasan University (supra), it is clear that prior approval of the AICTE to commence new department or course and programme in technical education by a university is not required. However, it is an obligation of the university/universities to conform and follow the norms and standards laid by the AICTE. A clarification in this regard as may be noticed was also issued by the Assistant Director (P & AP) of the AICTE to the Deputy Secretary (E), Government of Assam, Irrigation Department vide communication under Memo No. AD (P & AP) GN Cores/2017/147 dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure-7) of the additional affidavit filed by the writ petitioners. The Universities including Sathyabama University amongst others, from where the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have obtained their Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering having confirmed that the AICTE norms and standards have been followed and also in the absence of anything to the contrary, the withholding of the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by the Irrigation Department, in my considered opinion is not justified. In so far as the case of the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation ltd (supra) is concerned, it may be seen that there is clearly a distinction. The issue before the Apex Court in that case was with regard to the fulfillment of the AICTE norms and standards through distance education. The same is not the issue in the present case in as much as the petitioners have obtained their respective Bachelors Degree by a regular mode as confirmed by respondent No. 5 in its affidavit dated 18.06.2018. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, I find merit in the writ petition and accordingly the respondent Irrigation Department i.e. the respondent Nos. The same is not the issue in the present case in as much as the petitioners have obtained their respective Bachelors Degree by a regular mode as confirmed by respondent No. 5 in its affidavit dated 18.06.2018. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, I find merit in the writ petition and accordingly the respondent Irrigation Department i.e. the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to issue the appointment of the writ petitioners as Assistant Engineers (Civil) under the Irrigation Department without further delay within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. No cost.