GORDON KYNSAI NONGKYNRIH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the National Institute of Electronic and Information Technology (NIELIT) formerly known as Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Course (DOEACC) till 10/10/2011, issued an advertisement on 25/2/2010, inviting applications for recruitment to various vacant sanctioned post including 3 sanctioned posts of Scientist/Engineer "C' on regular basis. The writ petitioner who was having the qualification of MSc Computer Science, and was then holding the post of Scientific Officer, NIC, Mizoram, applied for the same through the proper channel. The qualification required for the post as given in the advertisement, was BE/B.Tech, MSc in relevant fields or recognized equivalent qualification with not less than 65% marks. The writ petitioner was then recommended by the expert committee and his name appeared at Serial No. 1, where after, an offer of appointment was made to the post of Scientist "C', on a short term basis for a period of 5 years. The writ petitioner joined the post at Aizawl centre, pursuant to an appointment order dtd. 9/10/2010, and has been drawing regular pay scale including increment, revised pay scale, contribution to provident fund, etc. The petitioner thereafter, was transferred on 2/5/2011, along with 2 others, who were appointed as Scientist "B' to Itanagar, along with the post. However, the services of the petitioner was not regularized, and the petitioner continued working in Itanagar till 2019, and was transferred to Shillong in November, 2019, where he is serving till date.

(2.) The grievance of the writ petitioner, is that inspite of his continuation in service on a regular scale of pay, instead of being regularized, his services are being extended from time to time, which is contrary to the advertisement dtd. 25/2/2010. Discrimination has also been alleged as 2 other candidates who had applied against the same advertisement as Scientist "B', were appointed on regular basis. Representations were then filed along with other similarly situated persons for issuance of orders to appoint him against the sanctioned post from the date of joining, but no action has been forthcoming from the respondents.

(3.) Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 other candidates who were appointed, pursuant to the advertisement to the post of Scientist "B' on contract basis, being aggrieved, had instituted a writ petition being WP(C) No. 286 of 2015, before the Gauhati High Court, wherein the present respondents, were also party respondents. The Gauhati High Court, by judgment dtd. 18/4/2017, he submits, directed the respondents to treat the service of the 2 persons, to the post of Scientist "B' on regular basis, with retrospective effect from the date of the offer of appointment. The learned counsel contends that as the petitioner is similarly situated, he should be given the same consideration by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been discharging his duties efficiently and further is an MSc in Computer Science, though not a prescribed qualification for the post of Scientist "C', but nevertheless, is an equivalent qualification. He submits that the advertisement, having categorically stated that the post against which he was appointed was appointment on a regular basis, the non-regularization of the services, apart from being discriminatory, has caused severe injustice and hardship, as to join the present post, the petitioner had resigned from his substantive post at the National Informatics Centre (NIC).