SAIFUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF ASSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Md Saiful Islam, has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.11.97 of the Secretary to the: Government of Assam, Education Department, by which the petitioner's representation to regularise his services as a lecturer in the Moirabari College and grant him UGC scale of pay has been rejected.

(2.) The relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner has been working as a lecturer History Department of the Moirabari College prior to 11.1.96. With effect from 11.1.96, the Moirabari College was brought under the Deficit System of Grant-in-aid, and the services of different lecturers working in the said Moirabari College were regularised by order dated 23.9.96 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam. As per the statement annexed to the said order dated 23.9.96 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, lecturers of different subjects were given the pay scale of Rs 2200-4000/-p.m. as per the UGC norms. By the said order dated 23.9.96 of the Director of Higher Education, however, services of the petitioner were not regularised and as a result he continued to draw the fixed pay of Rs 800/- p.m. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being Civil Rule No. 1999/97-which was disposed of with the direction to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to consider the case of the petitioner and after obtaining approval from the Government pass appropriate orders within two months of the receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 20.5.97 before the Director of Higher Education, Assam, stating therein that he was appointed as a Tutor in the Department of History in Moirabari College on 16.9.87 and his appointment as such was approved with effect from 9.12.88.. He was appointed as a lecturer in the same post by Resolution No. 8 of the Governing Body of the college on 18.3.89 and that the Principal of Moirabari College had forwarded the joining report of the petitioner on 17.2.97. Along with the said representation dated 20.5.97, the petitioner enclosed all necessary documents and requested the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to take steps to approve his appointment as a lecturer in Moirabari College. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, then wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department, stating therein, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed as a Tutor in the Department of History by the College authority of the Moirabari College on 16.9.87 while he was not a PG degree holder and he obtained his PG degree on 29.11.88 with 52.75% marks and the Governing Body of the College in its Resolution No. 8 dated 18.3.89 regularised the services of the petitioner as a lecturer in History Department with effect from 9.12.88. In the said letter, the Director of Higher Education further stated that the Moirabari College was taken under the Deficit System of Grant-in-aid with effect from 11.1.96, but the appointment of the petitioner could not be regularised as a lecturer in History along with other lecturers as he did not have the present UGC norms of 55% marks in Master Degree. But subsequently a list of under- qualified teachers was submitted to the Government for necessary action under letter dated 22.1.97 where the particulars of the petitioner were also included along with others which was still under consideration of the Government, and requested the Government to take necessary action on the proposal dated 22. 1.97 along with the case of Md Saiful Islam. The secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, then considered the case of the petitioner and by order dated 3.11.97 held on the basis of the materials before him that the petitioner joined as a lecturer in History in Moirabari College on 20.3.89 and therefore was not entitled to get UGC scale of Rs 2200-4000/- p.m. which was available to the lecturers of different colleges in Assam who had been appointed and joined before 15.12.88. Aggrieved by the said order dated 3.11.97, the petitioner has moved this court in the present Civil Rule for appropriate relief.

(3.) Mr A C Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Annexures-'A' , 'B', 'C' 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H' to the writ petition would clearly show that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Tutor in the Department of History in Moirabari College by order dated 9.9.87 as by then he had only completed MA (Previous) and had not acquired MA Degree. But on completion of his MA Degree with 52.75% marks in November/88, he was appointed as a lecturer in History in the said college with effect from 9.12.88 and his date of joining as such lecturer in the Department of History was taksn as 9.12.88. According to Mr Buragohain therefore the secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, was not at all right in coming to the findiing that the petitioner had been appointed and had joined as a lecturer in the College after 15.12.88 and was therefore not entitled do UGC scale of pay of Rs 2200- 4000/-p.m. Mr Buragohain further submitted that by order dated 24.12.96 of the overnment of Assam, Education apartment, a copy of which has been xnexed rto the writ petition as Annexure- 'E', the services of under-qualified teachers in fixed pay of Rs 2200/- p.m. plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules were approved by the Government and the statement of 11 under-qualified teachers of different colleges who were granted fixed pay of Rs 2200/- p.m. with effect from 11.1.96 was attached to the said order. The said statement would show that 2 out of 11 under- qualified lecturers had secured less marks than the petitioner and 2 out of the said under- qualified lecturers had secured same marks as that of the petitioner in the MA Examinations and that the Government acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in not approving the services of the petitioner in fixed pay of Rs 2200/- p.m. with effect from 11.1.9)5 and the whole action of the State Government was violative of the rights of equality. in matters of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.