SHILPI MITRA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court to quash the resolutions dated 20.12.2005 and 30.7.2006 adopted by the Governing Body of the Hojai College, Hojai, Nagaon (hereafter referred to as the College) for regularizing the services of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 against sanctioned posts lying vacant in the department of Economics, English and Mathematics respectively as well as the Government approval therefore as conveyed by its letter No. AHE.238/2006/207 dated 5.5.2007. A writ of mandamus and/or direction has been sought for instead to regularize her services against any of the posts in the aforementioned departments. This Court while issuing notice of notion on 4.5.2007 had maintained status quo with regard to the process of recommendation and approval of the regularization of the above mentioned respondents in terms of the resolutions impugned. I have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the State respondents, Mr. G. Uzir, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 (the College and the Governing Body), Mr. S.N. Sharma, Sr. Advocate for the respondents 5 and 6 and Mr. N. Choudhury, Advocate for the respondent No. 7.

(2.) THE fascicule of facts as the preface for the combative arguments generated thereby has been provided by the parties in their pleadings. The petitioner has introduced herself to be a Post Graduate in Chemistry (Inorganic) having secured First Class from Gauhati University. She claims to have U.G.C. Norms. She responded to an advertisement published by the College in the local daily, the Assam Tribune for appointment amongst others as a Lecturer in Chemistry with specialization Inorganic (Quantum). After subjecting herself to the selection process that followed by order dated 1.9.2000 she was appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry on ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1250/ - P.M. initially for a period of three months. She accordingly joined on 2.9.2000. The petitioner has disclosed that through the same process as many as six lecturers including her were appointed in various departments, their names and other relevant particulars being as follows.

(3.) ALL these appointments were against non -sanctioned posts necessitated by the extent of enrolment in the respective departments. The petitioner has claimed that though her initial term of appointment had been for three months, she was allowed to continue thereafter and accordingly she is rendering her services as such since then till date.