TULYA GOGOI Vs. ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.2.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 2148/92 by which it has been directed that the authorities shall not use the name, style and designation of Architect in respect of respondent Nos. 9 to 34 in the writ petition (appellants in this appeal). The appellants who were appointed as Architectural Draftsman were redesignated by means of the impugned order dated January 20, 1988 as Junior Architect which was challenged by the Respondent No. 1, namely, Association of Architects, Assam, by filing the above noted Civil Rule.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel Shri B.K. Das for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The writ petition was filed by Association of Architects, Assam which is registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is averred that its members are qualified and registered Architects under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972. Some of them are private professionals and others are employed including in the P.W.D., Assam. The present appellants were appointed by different orders passed by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. as Architectural Draftsman. Order dated January 20, 1988 was issued by the Government of Assam saying that in the interest of public service the Governor of Assam was pleased to redesignate the post of Architectrual Draftsman, P.W.D. as Junior Architect with immediate effect. This redesignation has been objected to by the Association of Architects, Assam on the ground that the appellants have undergone three years Diploma Course in Architectural Assistantship from the Girls's polytechnic which is neither recognised by the Central Government nor by the Council of Architecture. They are also not registered as Architect as provided under Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1972). Therefore, designation of Architect or Junior Architect cannot be bestowed upon them. It violates the provisions of the Act, 1972. It was also the case of the petitioner association that the appellants were being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Architect in the Public Works Department from the post of Junior Architect in the similar manner as provided for the Diploma holder Junior Engineers in the P. W.D. who are promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and so on. The case of the petitioner further is that under the Service Rules in the P. W.D. there is no post of Junior Architect. Hence the process of consideration of promotion of the appellants as Assistant Architect was bad in law and prayer was made that the Government may be restrained from proceeding further in the matter. Various provisions of the Act, 1972 have been placed before us.