SONAM THENDUP BHUTIA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) The issue in this Writ Petition concerns the alleged indifference of the State-Respondents to the plea of the Petitioners appointed on ad hoc as Assistant Professors to regularise their services on parity with 28 (twenty eight) others, who were absorbed as regular employees in the post of Assistant Professors.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying on Notification bearing No.F(85)/17/GEN/DOP, dtd. 27/4/2018, canvassed that the contents of the Notification assured all eligible temporary employees serving in the State on Workcharge, Muster Roll, ad hoc and Consolidated pay, continuously for five years or more as on 31/12/2018, under various Departments, that they would be considered for regularisation. That, pursuant thereto, vide Office Order No.348/DIR(HE)/HRDD, dtd. 22/9/2018, 8 (eight) persons were appointed to the post of Assistant Professors in Bhutia, Limboo and Lepcha respectively, sans interview, in the Pay Band of Rs.15600.0039100 with Academic Grade Pay of Rs.6,000.00 per month, plus admissible allowances, with effect from the date of their joining. The Petitioners who were also equally eligible were excluded from such appointment. That, aggrieved by the exclusion, the Petitioner No.1 filed an application before the Respondent No.2 under the Right to Information Act seeking information on the number of ad hoc Assistant Professors whose services had been regularised. The concerned authority informed that 28 (twenty eight) ad hoc Assistant Professors in Humanities, Commerce and Language subject were regularised/absorbed as 'regular' to the post of Assistant Professors. It was contended that the inequity meted out to the Petitioners is apparent as the services of one Tshering Chopel Bhutia whose name appears at Serial No.22 in the response provided by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure P8 dtd. 13/1/2020) had also been regularised, although, he had been initially appointed on ad hoc along with the Petitioner No.1 vide Office Order dtd. 2/2/2013. That, a legal notice was issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Annexure P9) by the Petitioners requesting regularisation of their services and thereby parity with the other Assistant Professors, to no avail. Hence, the prayers inter alia in the Writ Petition;

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General, for the State-Respondents, repudiated the Petitioners' claim contending that regularisation of service in terms of Notification dtd. 27/4/2018 supra was in fact issued by the State-Respondent No.1 for the purpose of regularisation of services of temporary employees serving in the Grade Pay of Rs.1400,.00 Rs.1800.00 and Rs.2300.00 respectively, falling under Group 'C' and 'D' categories. That, undisputedly the pay scales prescribed for the post of Assistant Professors being higher than the scales prescribed in the Notification excluded the Petitioners from the ambit of the Notification. This has also been clarified by the Respondent No.1 on enquiry by the Respondent No.2 as to the applicability of the Notification for the post of Assistant Professors. Besides, regularisation for the Petitioners was not possible the reason being that there were and are no vacant substantive posts of Assistant Professors for the subjects taught by the Petitioners. That, in any event, neither the appointment of the persons with whom the Petitioners claim parity nor their subsequent regularisation have been assailed by the Petitioners. Drawing strength from R. Muthukumar and Others vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and Others 2022 SCC On Line SC 151 it was canvassed that no negative equality can be claimed. Hence, the Petition deserves a dismissal.