Banani Das Purkayastha vs State of Tripura and Others

Petitioner initially filed Civil Rule No. 3799 of 1996 for quashing the order dated 25.1.1995 (Annexure-4) and for issue of a writ directing the respondents to appoint her to the post of Lecturer in Political Science in B. Barooah College in terms of resolutions dated 21.9.1995 and 10.6.1995 passed by the Governing Body (Annexures-5 and 7 respectively). While admitting the petition, this court vide order dated 19.8.1996 directed that the interim order passed on 7.8.1996 calling upon the parties to maintain status-quo.

Thereafter Civil Rule No. 3427 of 1998 has been filed for absorption/regularisation of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in view of her selection made in pursuance of the earlier advertisement dated 30.4.1994 (Annexure-2) and also for quashing the advertisement dated 13.7.1998 in so far as it relates to the post of Lecturer in Political Science.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. I have also perused the pleadings and other documents on record. It would appear that the post of Lecturer in Political Science fell vacant in the year 1991 and the petitioner submitted an application along with testimonials praying for appointment in the said vacant post. After viva-voce test she was selected and appointed as a part time lecturer in Political Science at a consolidated pay of Rs. 300 per month vide order dated 9.8.1991 by the Principal in-charge. Petitioner has been discharging her duties as Lecturer to the satisfaction of all. The respondents issued an advertisement on 30.4.1994 inviting applications for appointment against one non-sanctioned post of Lecturer in Political Science on a consolidated pay. The petitioner submitted her application in pursuance of the said advertisement. She was interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted by the Governing Body of the College and a select list was prepared showing the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 1 in order of merit. The Governing Body of the college also took a resolution on 20.6.1994 to appoint her in the said post. Accordingly, the Principal vide order dated 19.8.1994 appointed the petitioner to the post of Lecturer on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1000 per month. But the Principal-in-charge, without assigning any reason, terminated her services by an order dated 25.1.1995. It is also alleged that the aforesaid order of termination is per-se illegal since the Principal has no authority under the law to issue such termination order unless he is so directed by the Governing Body. The petitioner preferred a representation for review of the order of termination but no action was taken thereon. An appeal was also preferred by the petitioner before the Director of Public instruction, Assam on 8.3.1995. The joint Director of Higher Education vide letter dated 13.7.1995 directed the Principal-cum-Secretary of the Governing Body to place the appeal before the Governing Body of the College for consideration. The Governing Body in its meeting dated 21.9.1995 adopted a resolution to re-engage the petitioner temporarily as a Lecturer in Political Science on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1,000. The Principal-in-Charge [Respondent No. 4) was also directed to issue the order of re-engagement immediately. The relevant part of the copy of the resolution adopted by the Governing Body (Annexure-5) is quoted below: -

"Considering the entire matter relating to initial appointment of Mrs. Banani Das Purkayastha as part time lecturer at Rs. 300 P.M. and subsequently as ad hoc Lecturer at a consolidated pay of Rs. 1000 p.m. in the Department of Political Science in the College with the concurrence of the Governing Body and her termination from the post without reference and approval of the Governing Body and the facts mentioned above, the Governing Body resolved that Mrs. Banani Das Purkayastha be re-engaged temporarily as Lecturer in Political Science at a consolidated pay of Rs. 1000 (Rupees one thousand) only p.m. as before and the Principal i/c should issue the necessary order of her re-engagement as such immediately.".

But despite the resolution and direction of the Governing Body, the Principal-in-Charge refused to re-engage the petitioner. The Director of Public Instructions also vide letter dated 1.11.1995 directed that Principal-in-Charge to implement the decision of the Governing Body. But the Principal-in-Charge in total defiance to the order of the appropriate authority started engaging outsiders as stop-gap arrangement in the post earlier held by the writ petitioner.

It would appear from the resolution of the Governing Body and the direction given by the Joint Director that the petitioner was ordered to be re-engaged. There can be no justiflcable reason on the part of the Principal-in-Charge to refuse appointment to the writ petitioner. The resolution adopted again on 10.6.1996 also indicate that the Principal was directed to issue necessary orders for re-engagement of the writ petitioner. Apparently, the writ petitioner who has been ail-throughout employed was removed unceremoniously without any authority of law. The President of the Governing Body also handed-over a copy of the Resolution to the petitioner instructing her to report for duties. Despite that, the Principal (i/c) refused to issue appointment order or to allow the petitioner to join her post. Even the joining report submitted by the petitioner was not accepted. On 12.12.1997, the Principal issued an order extending the term of service till the next meeting of the Special Body. Thereafter, an order (Annexure-B of Miscellaneous Case No. 186/98) was issued informing that the extension granted was cancelled with effect from 28th February, 1998. The said Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of by this court with the observation that the petitioner should be allowed to continue to bold office during pendency of the main case. It would appear that the Principal also did not comply with the orders of the court. A petition for contempt being COP(C) No. 167/98 was filed and notice was issued to the Principal to show cause. Despite that, the Principal issued the impugned advertisement inviting applications for the post only with the intention of ousting her from the zone of consideration. The said advertisement appended with the writ petition as Annexure-12 shows that the additional qualification i.e. Special Paper "Modern Political Analysis" was prescribed as a must in the Master''s degree examination.

The Principal-in-Charge in para-3 of his affidavit-in-opposition stated that requisition for the number of posts to be sanctioned is normally forwarded by the Principal of the College to the Director of Higher Education. The Director of Higher Education while sanctioning the post never indicates the subject or the Department for which the post is sanctioned. It is for the College Authority, namely, the Principal-cum-Secretary of the Governing Body to earmark or assign the post to any Department or stream of course in consultation with the Governing Body, Special Body and the Head of the Departments.

Shri N. Dutta. learned senior counsel argued that the post of a Lecturer in Political Science or any other stream has to be filled up as per provisions of Rule 5 of the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960. Shri Dutta further submitted that a candidate having Second Class Master Degree in the concerned subject is eligible for appointment. According to him, the Principal has no power or authority in any manner under any provisions of law to vary the qualification specified in Rule-5. Addition of a paper, for example, Modern Political Analysis in the Master Degree Course as has been done in the instant case is contrary to the provisions of the Rules.

For better appreciation, the provisions of Rule 5(ii) of the rules of 1960 is quoted below:-

"5. Academic and other qualification. - (i) Principals - A candidate.................

(ii) Professors and lecturers - A candidate shall hold at least a Second Class Master Degree in the subject concerned."

It would appear from the above rule that there is force in the argument advanced by Shri Dutta. The Rule prescribes a Second Class Master degree in the concerned subject as the eligibility criteria. There is nothing in the rules to show that the qualification prescribed in the Rules framed by the Government could be varied by any other authority. That apart, there is also nothing on record to show that such variation by way of addition or subtraction has been permitted by any Executive Instruction. There is nothing on record to show that the Principal has added "Modern Political Analysis" as a compulsory paper in the Master Degree Course as eligibility criteria after consultation with the Governing Body or any other appropriate authority.

It would, therefore, appear that the addition of the subject as one of the requisites is intended to oust the petitioner from the zone of consideration. The conduct of the Principal-in-Charge in defying the orders of the Governing Body and the Director of Higher Education and his failure to comply with the directions given by this court in Miscellaneous case are clear indication of his determination not to allow the writ petitioner to continue in the post.

The Principal in spite of the orders passed by this court failed to produce the order of sanction relating to this post. It was necessary to ascertain the qualifications prescribed as eligibility criteria. The Principal in his affidavit dated 28.3.2000 has taken a plea that the sanction order was issued prior to 1967 and is not available in his office. He has furnished a copy of a letter written to the authority asking for the sanction order. But this is not enough. There is nothing on record to show that this letter dated 22.2.2000 was in fact served on the Director of Higher Education. In this case the career of a teacher is in peril. The Principal does not''seem to have given due weightage to the matter to assist the court to arrive a''t a logical conclusion.

It is not case where the writ petitioner entered the service through back-door. In fact she was once selected in pursuance of an advertisement by a duly constituted Selection Committee and she had occupied first position on merit. The factual merit of the case are indicative of the unjust treatment meted out to the petitioner to dislodge her from the post of Lecturer which she has been holding since long. For all these reasons, this court is of the opinion that there is no other option but to interfere with the impugned advertisement dated 13.7.1998.

Consequently, the writ petitions and the miscellaneous case''s are disposed of with the direction that the advertisement dated 13.7.1998 in so far it relates to the post of Lecturer in Political Science stands quashed. The respondents, particularly Respondent No.4, is directed to re-engage/allow the writ petitioner to continue in her service in terms of the resolution adopted by the Governing Body and the direction given by the Director of Higher Education. Simultaneously, the respondent No. 4 who is the Ex-Officio Secretary of the Governing Body shall place the entire matter including the petitioner''s case for regularisation before the Governing Body for a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the law.

No order as to costs.