AGIN TABOH Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For a State to grow, develop and be acknowledged, in the present modern world, as a advanced State, it is quite natural for the State to give best of education to the largest number of its population. For the purpose of achieving this object, it is natural for the State to lay emphasis not only in giving education to its largest number of population, but also to give stress on providing them with better quality of education. For the purpose of developing the quality of education, the quality of imparter of education at every level, particularly, at the level of college and University, is of immense importance. It is, therefore, quite reasonable for the State to insist on recruiting, as imparters of education, persons with good academic qualification. However, while striving to achieve this goal, the State cannot ignore its own laws. If law made by the State becomes stumbling block in achieving this object, the State will be well within its powers to amend and modify the law; but so long as the law does not permit a State, the State cannot insist on any particular qualification for selection of imparters of education. For improving the quality of education at the level of college and University, the University Grant Commission (in short, the UGC) has prescribed certain qualifications for recruitment of those, who may impart education at such level. For a State to make endeavour to recruit Lecturers of colleges as per the norms set by the UGC is desirable, but while trying to apply the norms so set by the UGC, no State can ignore its own laws relating to recruitment of persons, who will be responsible to impart education at the college and University level. Such is the picture, which the present batch of writ petitions depicts.

(2.) With the help of this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of the following writ petitions, namely, WP (C) Nos 17 (AP) 2002,392 (AP) 2001,413 (AP) 2001,781 (AP) 2001,175 (AP) 2000 and 13 (AP) 2001. WP (C) 17 (AP) 2002,392 (AP) 2000 and 413 (AP) 2001:3. Though these writ petitions have undergone several twists and turns, the case of the petitioners, which finally emerged, may in brief, be narrated as follows: (i) all the petitioners except petitioner Nos 2 and 3 in WP (C) 17 (AP) 2002, namely, Miss Vineeta Dowerah and Miss Parna Sarkar belong to Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes and all of them hold Masters degree in different subjects, all the petitioners except two of them, namely, Johny Techi and Jumya Lollen having, however, obtained, in their post-graduation, more than 55% marks. The petitioners in WP (C) 781 (AP) of 2001, namely, Johny Techi and Jumya Lollen aforementioned have secured 51.5% and 50.6% marks respectively in their post-graduation. (ii) All the four petitioners in WP (C) No. 17 (AP) of 2002 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Lecturers in October, 1997, in different Govt colleges in the State of Arunachal Pradesh vide orders issued by the Secretary, Department of Education, Govt of Education, against sanctioned vacant posts on regular scale of pay. Their ad hoc appointment continued to be extended from time to time until the order, dated 1.11.98, was issued by the State-respondents terminating their ad hoc appointment and they were all, with the help of the same order, came to be appointed on contract basis on consolidated pay of Rs. 10,560 PM. (iii) Same as in the case of the petitioners in WP (C) 17 (AP) of 2002, the petitioners in WP (C) Nos 392 (AP) of 2001 and 413 (AP) of 2001, namely, Miss Sonam Wangmu and Shri Kiran Longchung respectively were also appointed on ad hoc basis as Lecturers in Govt colleges in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, their dates of appointment being 23.8.96 and 10.11.97 respectively. Same as in the case of the petitioners in WP (C) 17 (AP) of 2002, the ad hoc appointments of the petitioners in WP (C) Nos 392 (AP) of 2001 and 413 (AP) of 2001 were also terminated vide orders dated 1.11.98, aforementioned issued by the State-respondents and these petitioners too were appointed by the same order as Lecturers on contract basis on the consolidated pay of Rs. 10,760. (iv) Before termination of the ad hoc appointments of the petitioners on 1.11.98 as herein above mentioned, the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, through Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the APPSC) issued an advertisement dated 17.7.98, inviting applications for 31 posts of Lecturers in Govt colleges in Arunachal Pradesh in the regular scale of pay. The qualifications required for appointment as given in the advertisement was that a candidate must have Masters degree in the relevant subject with, at least, 55% marks or its equivalent grade with good academic record and must have been awarded with Ph D. or M. Phil or have qualified in National Eligibility Test (in short, NET) conducted by the UGC or State Level Eligibility Test (in short, SLET). Though the petitioners were neither M. Phil, nor Ph D. and had also not qualified in NET or SLET, they all applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. Instead of calling the petitioners for interview/viva voce test as per the advertisement, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners were terminated by order dated 1.11.98, aforementioned and they came to be appointed, as indicated herein before, on contract basis. The petitioners were not called for interview on the ground that they did not have necessary qualification. On the refusal of the APPSC to call the petitioners for interview, they approached this Court with the help of their writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners did have necessary qualification for appointment and they ought to have been called for the interview. However, on the strength of the orders passed on 8.3.99, 15.3.99 and 5.3.99 in WP (C) Nos 17 (AP) of 2002, WP (C) 1069 of 1999 (PS), 392 (AP) of 2001, WP (C) 1239 of 1999 (PS) and 413 (AP) of 2001, WP (C) 950 of 1999 (PS) respectively, the petitioners were allowed by the APPSC to appear in the interview and as per the directions contained in the interim orders aforementioned, the results of their interview have been kept in sealed covers/envelopes. WP (C) 781 (AP) of 2001: (v) While the above mentioned three writ petitions, namely, WP (C) 17 (AP) of 2002,392 (AP) of 2001 and 413 (AP) of 2001 were pending for disposal, the State-respondents published another advertisement dated 22.3.2000, inviting applications for filling up of 11 posts of Lecturers in different subjects in Govt colleges in Arunachal Pradesh on regular scale of pay. This advertisement also prescribed the same qualifications as in the advertisement, dated 17.7.98, aforementioned for appointment to the said posts. The four writ petitioners in WP (C) No.781 (AP) of 2001 were not ad hoc appointees; rather, they were serving as Lecturers in different Govt colleges in the State of Arunachal Pradesh on contract basis on consolidated pay of Rs. 10,560/- vide order dated 29.12.99 issued by Secretary, Department of Education, Arunachal Pradesh. When the advertisement, dated 22.3.2000, aforementioned was published, these petitioners too applied for appointment, but they too were not called for interview on the ground that they did not have requisite qualification. It was, at this stage, that these petitioners too came to Court with the help of their writ petition and on the strength of the interim direction dated 24.7.2000, passed in their case, they too were allowed to appear in the interview/viva voce test and hey have accordingly appeared and their results have been kept in sealed cover/envelop as per the directions of this Court. WP (C) 17 (AP) of 2002,392 (AP) of 2001,413 (AP) of 2001 and 78 (AP) of 2001: (vi) The petitioners in WP (C) Nos 17 (AP) of 2002,392 (AP) of 2001 and 413 (AP) of 2001 claim that they possess necessary qualification for appointment as Lecturers in Govt colleges as per the relevant Recruitment Rules and that the UGC guidelines prescribing the qualification are not applicable to them inasmuch as the same have not been legally adopted by the State Govt. The petitioners also claim that their ad hoc appointment was arbitrarily cancelled without giving them any notice to that effect and, hence, their services deserve to be regularized, because they have beer serving for long as Lecturers in different Govt colleges, they have experience and also legitimate expectation. So far as the petitioners in WP (C) No.781 (AP) of 2001 are concerned, their claim is that their contractual appointment ought to have been regularized, but the respondents have arbitrarily not done so, though the petitioners are fully qualified for appointment under the relevant Recruitment Rules. (vii) It is the further case of all the writ petitioners that the State of Arunachal Pradesh has not adopted the UGC guidelines for appointment of Lecturers, the State has its own Recruitment Rules for appointment of Lecturers for Govt colleges and it is this Recruitment Rules, which is followed till date and under this Recruitment Rules, the respondent authorities had, in the past, regularized services of a good number of persons, who were working as Lecturers. If, at all, the UGC guidelines are applicable, then, as per the UGC guidelines, SLET has to be conducted twice a year and the same shall be conducted by an independent agency so as to facilitate the teachers without M. Phil or Ph D. degree to become qualified for appointment as Lecturers in the UGC scale of pay, but the State of Arunachal Pradesh has not conducted the SLET. Since the State Govt has failed in its duty to conduct the SLET, the respondent authorities cannot disqualify the petitioners after extracting service from them. As per the UGC guidelines, relaxation of required qualification like NET, M. Phil, Ph D. etc may be made by taking prior approval from the UGC by concerned Universities. Hence, the Govt can, with approval from the UGC, relax these requirements by considering the teaching experience of the petitioners, which is one of the basic criteria for appointment to the posts of Lecturers on regular basis. Even as per the Recruitment Rules itself, the authorities concerned may relax the requisite qualification of NET or SLET. (viii) These petitioners also plead that most of the petitioners have become over-aged and they have crossed the maximum age limit for receiving any other Govt appointment. If the services of the petitioners are not regularized, it will be sheer exploitation of the petitioners. The petitioners are being discriminated by the respondent authorities by not regularizing their services, though the authorities have, in the past, regularized the cases of similarly situated persons on the basis of experience and educational qualification and those Lecturers are serving without any hindrance and some of them, in fact, already stand promoted to higher posts. Eight numbers of Lecturers were appointed on ad hoc basis on 12.7.91. After their discontinuation of service, these Lecturers moved this Court and following the orders passed in CR Nos 787 of 1992,788 of 1992, 710 of 1992, they were re-appointed. In the year 1996, too another batch of eighteenth Lecturers were appointed in the similar way. As the present petitioners are similarly situated, their cases deserved to be considered for regularization. (ix) The total number of the sanctioned posts of the Lecturers in the various colleges of Arunachal Pradesh is 188. The posts occupied by the Lecturers in various subjects including the Lecturers on contract basis are 179. The recently appointed Lecturers are 4. Therefore, the total posts occupied are 179+4=183. The existing vacancies are 188-183=5. As such, the presently selected candidates can be appointed in those vacant posts without disturbing the petitioners. WP (C) Nos 175 (AP) of 2000 and 13 (AP) of 2001 : (x) While the petitioner in WP (C) No. 13 (AP) 2001 is a member of Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner in WP (C) No. 175 (AP) of 2000 is not a member of any Scheduled Tribe. Both these petitioners applied for appointment to the posts of Lecturer of Govt colleges in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 22.3.2000, aforementioned. As both these petitioners possessed the qualifications prescribed under the advertisement aforementioned, both of them were interviewed and they stand selected. They have, however, not been appointed on account of the fact that the vacancies to accommodate them do not exist inasmuch as the vacancies would become available depending upon the decision in WP (C) Nos 17 (AP) of 2002,392 (AP) of 2001,413 (AP) of 2001 and 781 (AP) of 2001. The petitioners have been unjustly and illegally denied the appointments, which they had sought for.

(3.) The respondents have resisted the prayers made by the petitioners, the case of the respondents being in brief, as under: (i) Recruitment Rules exist for appointment of Lecturers in Govt colleges. The Lecturers, who are appointed on ad hoc basis, are actually appointed on short term basis by way of stop-gap arrangement to run the colleges as there is always some delay in making selection of Lecturers by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. There is no provision in the relevant Recruitment Rules for regularizing the services of the ad hoc Lecturers or Lecturers serving on contract basis. The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis subject to the condition that such appointment will not vest in them any right to claim regular appointment. Though the services of the petitioners were extended from time to time, the ad hoc as well as contractual appointments were made without considering the question as to whether they were eligible for appointment as Lecturers of Govt colleges or not and also without due selection by the APPSC. Hence, the question of appointing the petitioners by relaxing the necessary qualifications or the question of regularizing their services does not arise. (ii) As per the UGC guidelines, a candidate must be a Master Degree holder in the relevant subject with, at least 55% marks or the equivalent grade with a good academic records and must have been awarded with a Ph. D or M. Phil upto 31.12.93 or have qualified in the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) for Lectureship, which is accredited by the UGC. As per revised UGC's notification published in the year 1998, the recruitment to the post of Lecturer shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selection by the duly constituted Selection Committee. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh Govt Colleges, it is the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, which selects teachers for the Govt colleges in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules. Qualifying in the NET or accredited test, such as, SLET, is essential. The last UGC guidelines, notification was received by the APPSC after the recruitment process was over. Those petitioners, who were not found eligible in terms of the advertisements dated 17.7.98 and 22.3.2002 aforementioned, were not called for the interview, though they were working as Lecturers on contract basis, but others, who fulfilled the required norms, were called for the interview. The State Govt has adopted and followed the UGC guidelines and norms issued from time to time for the purpose of appointment of Lecturers in Govt colleges. Though Ph. D or M. Phil is not a requirement for appointment as Lecturers, passing of NET or SLET is apre-requisite for appointment as Lecturers. As per the qualification prescribed by the UGC for appointment as Govt college Lecturers, the petitioners do not fulfil the requirements, and since they do not have necessary qualification, they have not been called for the interview. However, they have been allowed to appear in the interview on the strength of the interim directions given by this Court. (iii) Neither the Govt nor the APPSC has the power to relax any of the qualifications laid down by the UGC for appointment of Lecturers on regular basis and it is the UGC, which is the appropriate authority to prescribe the qualifications, etc for appointment of Lecturers. Unless the petitioner possess the qualifications prescribed by the UGC, they cannot become entitled for appointment as Lecturers on regular basis. (iv) It is not mandatory for the State to conduct the State Eligibility Test. The National Eligibility Test is regularly held by Arunachal University, which is the only University in Arunachal Pradesh, and persons desirous of applying for the job of Lecturers in colleges are free to sit in the National Eligibility Test, if they are, otherwise, eligible. (v) Some Lecturers were appointed on ad hoc basis during the year 1989 on being selected by a duly constituted Board formed by the Govt vide order No. ED/HE-45/86 dated 8.5.89. These Govt college Lecturers had been serving on ad hoc basis for more than three years and were drawing their periodical increments and also enjoying other benefits like LTC, earned leave and other facilities as per rules in force, which were being enjoyed by the other regular Lecturers. Considering their services as ad hoc Lecturers for a considerable period and the other facilities that were being enjoyed by them, the Govt had to regularize their services in relaxation for Recruitment Rules as one time waiver. The case of the petitioners, thus, cannot be equated with those ad hoc Lecturers appointed in the year 1989 as the petitioners were appointed on the basis of their applications only and they were not selected by any Selection Committee or the APPSC. This apart, one wrong order cannot be made a reason for perpetuating such order on the ground of discrimination. In fact, before the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners, no advertisement had been issued. The candidates had applied on their own and as there was a large number of applicants, a formal interview was held, on 2.11.1999, for selection of the candidates. The petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis till Lecturers were selected for the purpose of appointment by the APPSC on regular basis. The Lecturers of the colleges are appointed on regular basis following due selection and recommendation by the APPSC in pursuance of advertisements published for the purpose as per the UGC guidelines. In the case of Scheduled Tribe candidates, minimum 55% marks prescribed by the UGC has been relaxed to 50% by the State Govt but there can be no relaxation of the prescribed qualification of passing of the NET or SLET. (vi) Neither at the time, when the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis nor at the time, when they were engaged on contract basis, the petitioners raised any objection nor did they approach the Court for their regular appointment as they knew the fact that they do not fulfil the required qualifications. The appointment of the petitioners as ad hoc Lecturers were, thus, only a stop gap arrangement and they had accepted and acquiesced the ad hoc as well as contractual appointments for short term period. (vii) The petitioner's appointment on contract basis were for specific period and the petitioners accepted the appointments knowing the conditions of such appointment and, hence, there was no justification in allowing them to continue beyond the contracted period as the APPSC has already selected eligible candidates for being appointed on regular basis. The writ petitioners must give way to the regularly selected candidates for being appointed as Lecturers.