Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 452 (GAU)

Gopal Chandra Barman v. State of Assam

2018-03-15

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are represented by Mr. K.K. Gogoi, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Higher Education. Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati University, represents the respondent No.4, while Mr. A. Chamuah, as the standing counsel for the UGC, represents the respondent No.5. For the Union of India, Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Central Govt. counsel appears. There is no representation from the side of the respondent Nos.6—12, although they have filed their counter affidavit on 31.5.2013, through learned Advocate Mr. H. Rahman. 2. This is an inter-se seniority dispute amongst the Lecturers (now Asstt. Professors) , in the Damdama College of Kamrup (R) District and the primary challenge of the petitioner is to the resolution dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure-32) , whereby the Governing Body resolved to appoint Tapanjit Raj Konwar (respondent No.8) , as the Vice Principal of the College. According to the petitioner, he ranks higher in seniority and therefore, is more deserving of the post of Vice Principal. 3. The Damdama College was brought under the under the Deficit-grant-in-aid scheme, w.e.f. 1.7.1989. Since then, such colleges have been provincialised under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Provincialisation Act). 4. The service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the college is governed by the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Employees Rules). The seniority of the employees in each cadre, is to be determined by application of Rule 17 and the college is required to publish a cadre-wise gradation list, every year for all their employees under, Rule 18 of the Employees Rules. 5. It may be noted that no gradation list for the teaching staff of Damdama College is produced before the Court. On the other hand, the petitioner claims to be senior to the respondents on the basis of the approval to his appointment as a Lecturer of History, accorded on 1.7.1989 and in contrast, the later approval granted on 19.5.1992, to the private respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner claims to be senior to the respondents on the basis of the approval to his appointment as a Lecturer of History, accorded on 1.7.1989 and in contrast, the later approval granted on 19.5.1992, to the private respondents. The petitioner also points out that the date of approval for the private respondents was modified subsequently under the Director of Higher Educations (DHE) order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure-22) and it was stipulated that the approval for the appointment to the under-qualified Lecturers, will be granted from the date of acquiring the UGC qualifications such as M. Phil/Ph.D or NET/SLET degrees. 6. As regards the challenge to the appointment of the Vice Principal, on the basis of instruction received from the DHE, the learned standing counsel Mr. K.K. Gogoi, submits that Tapanjit Raj Konwar (respondent No.8) , whose appointment as Vice Principal is specifically challenged, was recently given the compulsory retirement on 1.2.2008, on disciplinary grounds. In fact, the position of Vice Principal in the Damdama College is currently occupied by Dharmeswar Barman (respondent No.6). 7. The examination of the statutory provisions reflect that the Employees Rules do not provide for appointment of the Vice Principal but the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the senior-most teaching staff, is usually appointed as the Vice Principal, subject to willingness of the concerned incumbent. 8. The claim of the petitioner to be the Vice Principal, will require determination of inter se seniority of the faculty members in the Damdama College. In similar circumstances, where inter se seniority was required to be determined for college employees, this Court had issued direction to the Director of Higher Education to examine the service particulars of the concerned lecturers and then to decide the inter se seniority. This appears to be the reasonable mode of resolution of the seniority dispute since the necessary particulars of the petitioner and the private respondents are not available in the Court. Moreover, it would be necessary to hear the concerned faculty members and also the college Governing Body, before the declaration of inter se seniority is made. 9. This appears to be the reasonable mode of resolution of the seniority dispute since the necessary particulars of the petitioner and the private respondents are not available in the Court. Moreover, it would be necessary to hear the concerned faculty members and also the college Governing Body, before the declaration of inter se seniority is made. 9. Considering the above and the fact that neither the college nor the private respondents have participated in the present proceeding, the determination of inter se seniority of the faculty members of the Damdama College, is directed to be made by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, with due opportunity to all the stake holders. The posting of the Vice Principal, will abide by the seniority declaration, made by the Director. To facilitate the exercise, the petitioner may furnish a copy of this order and determination should then be made with reasonable promptitude and preferably within eight weeks of receipt of intimation. It is ordered accordingly. 10. With the above order, the case stands disposed of, in the manner indicated.