Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 632 (GAU)

Director of NERIST v. Benudhar Nayak

2025-04-09

KALYAN RAI SURANA, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

body2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Y. Longkumer, J. Heard Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Anju, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 8; and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, appearing for respondent no.9. 2. This intra-Court appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020. The appellants were the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the said writ petition, which was filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 8. The respondent no. 9 was arrayed as respondent no. 1 in the said writ petition. 3. By the said order, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants as well as the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India to implement the decision as reflected in the order dated 12.01.2016 in respect of the respondent nos.1 to 8 in compliance with the order dated 27.04.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, for which a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the order was granted. Resultantly, the order dated 10.01.2017, passed by the Registrar, North East Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli (NERIST for short) (appellant no.2) in respect of the respondent nos.1 to 8 was set aside and quashed. It was further made clear that the said order was passed on its own peculiar facts and should not be treated as a precedent. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 8 has submitted that the said writ petition was also filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 8, which is admitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. 5. The factual matrix, in brief, on which the W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020 was decided are as follows: a. The respondent nos. 1 to 8 (i.e. writ petitioners) are working as Professor/ Associate Professor in NERIST. b. The Registrar, NERIST had issued an order dated 09.05.2013, for upgradation of certain financial benefits, if the faculty members fulfill the criteria mentioned therein. c. As the said order was not implemented, the respondent nos.1 to 8 had filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, which was disposed of by order dated 27.04.2016. b. The Registrar, NERIST had issued an order dated 09.05.2013, for upgradation of certain financial benefits, if the faculty members fulfill the criteria mentioned therein. c. As the said order was not implemented, the respondent nos.1 to 8 had filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, which was disposed of by order dated 27.04.2016. It would suffice to mention that while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court had referred to the order dated 12.01.2016, issued by the appellant no.2, disclosing therein that in the Board meeting, approval was recorded for implementation of the Office Order dated 09.05.2013 and 06/11.09.2013, regarding upgradation of faculty members for placement under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS for short). Accordingly, on recording the stand of NERIST before the writ Court, agreeing to implement the said order/ decision, this Court had formed an opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the writ petition. Accordingly, the said W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, was disposed of by directing that the decision reflected in the order dated 12.01.2016 would be implemented in the case of the respondent nos.1 to 8 as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. d. It would also suffice to mention that the said order dated 27.04.2016, passed in W.P.(C) 94(AP)/2014, had attained finality, having not been put to challenge by anyone including the appellants. However, without implementing the hereinbefore referred orders, the appellants took a U-turn and expressed a contrary view vide Office Order dated 10.01.2017. e. Accordingly, the respondent nos.1 to 8, who are stated to be also the petitioners in W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, again approached this Court and by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020, had laid challenge to the said order dated 10.01.2017. f. In the proceedings of W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020, the appellants had made an attempt to justify their action on the ground that since the matter involved huge financial implication, the NERIST had no power to take a final decision. 6. Considering all the circumstances and materials available on the record, this Court had recorded in the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 that it was taking a lenient view and held that interest of justice would be served if the said writ petition is disposed of by directing the appellants i.e. the NERIST and the Ministry of Education, Govt. 6. Considering all the circumstances and materials available on the record, this Court had recorded in the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 that it was taking a lenient view and held that interest of justice would be served if the said writ petition is disposed of by directing the appellants i.e. the NERIST and the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India to implement the decision as reflected in the order dated 12.01.2016, in respect of the respondent nos.1 to 8, in compliance with the order dated 27.04.2016, passed in W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014. Accordingly, the appellants and the Govt. of India, Ministry of Education, were directed to implement the decision reflected in the order dated 12.01.2016 within a period of 2 (two) months. Resultantly, the order dated 10.01.2017, issued by the Registrar, NERIST (appellant no.2), assailed in W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020, was set aside and quashed. 7. In light of the above referred brief factual matrix, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 8 has raised preliminary issue regarding maintainability of this writ appeal on the sole ground that the impugned order dated 29.07.2024, passed in W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020 is merely a direction to the appellants to implement the appellant’s own order dated 12.01.2016 and to comply with the consent order dated 27.04.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014. Accordingly, it is submitted that this appeal is not maintainable against the agreed and consent order. 8. Per contra, opposing the question of maintainability of this writ petition, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 8, it has been submitted that when the issue of implementation of those orders came, the other faculty members of NERIST had raised serious objections for implementation of the NERIST’s earlier order dated 09.05.2013 on the ground that it would adversely affect the seniority structure. It was submitted that though the NERIST had provided CAS benefit for 6 (six) months, but in view of serious complaints raised by other faculty members, the said contentious issue was once again placed before the Board of Management. Accordingly, the Board of Management had constituted a committee for rectification of the CAS anomalies. However, the said Committee, after taking into account the order of this Court, could not submit a conclusive report. 9. Accordingly, the Board of Management had constituted a committee for rectification of the CAS anomalies. However, the said Committee, after taking into account the order of this Court, could not submit a conclusive report. 9. On merit, it was further submitted that the learned Single Judge had exceeded its jurisdiction by making the committee to examine CAS anomalies redundant by not allowing the appellants to rectify the anomalies. It is submitted that the leaned Single Judge did not consider that on the ground that the order dated 10.01.2017, by which the order dated 09.05.2013 was modified, was not interfered with and two contempt petitions, being Cont.Pet. 42(AP)/2016 and Cont.Pet. 05(AP)/2016 were closed. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the anomalies and/or wrong calculations in respect of the respondent nos.1 to 8, compared to similarly situated other faculty members of NERIST. Thus, the learned Single Judge did not examine that by the order dated 10.01.2017, by which previous order dated 09.05.2013 was modified, rectified the mistake in calculation of CAS financial benefit. Accordingly, it is submitted that the NERIST does not have any financial powers. However, the financial implication to implement the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2024, passed in WP(C) 304(AP)/2020 would run into huge amount of money. Thus, as the appellants are to manage its affairs limiting itself to disbursement of the budgeted amount allocated by the Government of India, the order dated 27.06.2024, was liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, it is submitted that this appeal would be maintainable and ought not to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 10. The Court has carefully perused the pleadings and documents available in record. It is seen that by an Office Order dated 19.04.2005, issued by the Registrar, NERIST, the decision taken by the Board of Management in its89th meeting had been referred to and it was decided, amongst others, that “… for those faculty members, who having fulfilled the prescribed criteria for st promotion under CAS prior to 1 July, 2004 and are promoted under the scheme at a later date due to delayed operation of CAS, the financial benefit would be granted from the date of eligibility in each case”. It is mentioned in the said order that it was issued with the approval of the authority. 11. It is mentioned in the said order that it was issued with the approval of the authority. 11. During the pendency of W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, the Registrar, NERIST (appellant no.2) had issued an order, wherein it was stated that the Chairman, Board of Management, NERIST had accorded approval for implementation of the Office Orders dated 09.05.2013 and 06/11.09.2013, regarding upgradation of faculty members for placement under CAS from eligible date. However, in respect of financial benefit, those faculty members, who had come to this Court was ordered that it would be finalized on receipt of this Court’s final judgment. Thereafter, in the proceedings of W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, the appellants had produced a copy of order dated 12.01.2016. Accordingly, the Court, after recording the stand of the appellants and submissions made by their learned senior counsel, had disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 27.04.2016, directing that the order dated 12.01.2016 would be implemented in case of the present respondent nos.1 to 8, which is already referred hereinbefore. 12. The events subsequent thereto are already referred hereinbefore. 13. Thus, the records reveal that facts which are undisputed are to the effect that the Board of Management of NERIST had taken a decision in its 89th meeting on implementation of CAS. This fact is recorded in the office order dated 19.04.2005, issued by the appellant no.2. This is followed by another office order dated 12.01.2016, by the appellant no.2, regarding implementation of CAS, wherein the approval of the Board of Management of NERIST has been specifically mentioned. Moreover, the appellants have not been able to refer to any document on record to demonstrate that the said two office orders dated 19.04.2005 and 12.01.2016 and the decision of the Board of Management of NERIST were recalled. 14. Moreover, it is nearly 9 (nine) years of the consent order dated 27.04.2016, passed in W.P.(C) 91(AP)/2014, having attained finality. 15. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, merely because there were allegedly some objections by some quarter cannot be a ground not to implement this Court’s orders. Moreover, if the appellants had found that there were anomalies in the calculation of CAS financial benefit in respect of the respondent nos. 1 to 8, the appellants ought to have been well advised regarding proper recourse for them. A mere allegation of calculation mistake cannot be a ground not to implement the order of this Court. Moreover, if the appellants had found that there were anomalies in the calculation of CAS financial benefit in respect of the respondent nos. 1 to 8, the appellants ought to have been well advised regarding proper recourse for them. A mere allegation of calculation mistake cannot be a ground not to implement the order of this Court. 16. The Court also finds no merit in the allegation that the learned Single Judge had exceeded its jurisdiction by making the committee to examine CAS anomalies redundant by not allowing the appellants to rectify the anomalies. The said stand is misplaced. The appellants have not annexed any order of this Court by which the examination of alleged CAS anomalies by the Committee was stayed. In the considered opinion of the Court, none of the grounds raised by the appellants in this appeal are justifiable grounds to not implement the order of this Court. The appellants and its authorities ought to have taken note of the fact that the persons who were allegedly objecting to the implementation of CAS for the respondent nos. 1 to 8 have also slept over their rights by not assailing this Court’s order in W.P.(C) No. 91(AP)/2014. 17. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned order dated 29.07.2024, does not suffer from any perversity, either in the appreciation of pleading or any documents, which are a part of the said W.P.(C) 304(AP)/2020. Accordingly, the interference by this Court against the appellants’ action vide office order dated 10.01.2017, which is ex facie contrary to the orders of this Court, cannot be held to be suffering from any patent error, or error on the face of the record. 18. The financial hardship or lack of financial power as portrayed by the appellants, does not constitute a sufficient reason to admit this appeal because the directions contained in the said two orders of this Court dated 27.04.2016 and 29.07.2024, is upon the appellants as well as against the Union of India, i.e. Ministry of Education, Govt. of India. 19. Having regard to the facts, it cannot be held that the judgment and order, impugned in this intra-court appeal, is against the established or well settled principle of law. 20. of India. 19. Having regard to the facts, it cannot be held that the judgment and order, impugned in this intra-court appeal, is against the established or well settled principle of law. 20. In the case of N. Ramachandra Reddy v. State of Telangana, (2020) 16 SCC 478 : AIR 2019 SC 4182 , the Supreme Court of India has held that while considering intra-court appeal, unless the appellate Bench concludes that the findings of Single Judge is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. 21. In the case of State of Tripura v. Ramendra Nath Dey, (2000) 3 GLT 214: (2001) 1 GLR 54: (2000) 0 Supreme(Gau) 280, this Court has held that the judgment of the Single Judge should be set aside or quashed only when there is patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against the established or well settled principle of law. 22. In the case of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dept. of Agriculture, 2004 (1) GLT 117, which was followed in North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology v. Prabhanjan Kumar Pranav, (2018) 5 GLR 572: (2017) 0 Supreme(Gau) 1509, this Court had held that if two reasonable and logical views are possible, the view adopted by the Single Judge should normally be allowed to prevail. 23. In the case of Assam State Electricity Board V. Sri Surya Kanta Roy, (1994) 1 GLR 383: (1993) 0 Supreme(Gau) 190, tis Court has held that the appellate Court will not interfere with the discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law. 24. It would be apposite to clarify herein that the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 17 SCC 408 , has held that it was incumbent upon the Division Bench to deal with all issues urged and record its finding. In deference to the said decision, the Court had dealt with all the grounds of this appeal as well as in respect of the points urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellants 25. Thus, the present appeal is held to be not sustainable on facts and in law. In deference to the said decision, the Court had dealt with all the grounds of this appeal as well as in respect of the points urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellants 25. Thus, the present appeal is held to be not sustainable on facts and in law. As the challenge is made to the consent order dated 27.04.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 91(AP)/2014, referred above, which was ordered to be implemented vide impugned order dated 29.07.2024, passed in WP(C) 304(AP)/2020, the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is sustained. Consequently, this intra-Court appeal is found to be not maintainable on facts and in law. 26. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed. 27. Under the circumstances, the Court refrains from imposing cost.