Dwipen Kaiborta vs State of Assam and Others

J.N. Sarma, J.—This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 6, Noor Alam as the Lecturer in Political Science in Bimala Prasad Chaliha College, Nagar Bera, District Kamrup denying the lawful right of the Petitioner to be appointed as Lecturer of Political Science (Sociology) in that college. The brief facts are as follows:

The Petitioner belongs to SC Community and he passed his HSLC examination in 1977 and secured 3rd Division. He passed P.U. in the year 1979 securing 3rd Division with 40% marks. He passed B.A. in the year 1983 with Hons. in Political Science securing 45% marks. He passed his MA. in Political Science from Gauhati University with special paper, that is, Sociology securing 55.5%. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 6 passed HSLC securing 2nd Division with 48% marks. He passed P.U. securing 2nd Division with 45% and passed his B.A. with Hons. securing 48% and also passed M.A. securing 56.2%.

The Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in M.K. College Barpeta and he has been working there to the satisfaction of all concerned. There was an advertisement for appointment of a lecturer in Political Science with Sociology and that advertisement is quoted below:

Applications with full particulars are invited from eligible candidates having UGC norms on usual scale pay for the following sanctioned posts of BP Chaliha College, Nagarbera and should reach the undersigned within twelve days from the dale of advertisement. Candidates should have special subject/paper in M.A., M.Sc. as shown below against each subject preference will be given to those that are getting selection by the State Selection Board.

Persons is employ should apply through proper channel.

Interview will be held on 19.7.92 and no formal and separate letter will be issued. As such candidates are requested to present themselves for interview at 8.30 a.m. on 19.7.92 in the college premises.

i)...........

ii)........

iii).......

iv).......

v) Political Science - One

(Sociology)

Principal, B.P. Chaliha College, Nagarbera, P.O. Nagarbcra, PIN 781127, District - Kamrup.

The Petitioner submitted his application in response to the advertised post. It is stated in para 6 of the writ application as follows:

That the Petitioner states that on the date of interview, i.e. on 19.7.92, he alongwith some Other candidates were interviewed for the post of political science (sociology). The Petitioner, however, was the only Scheduled Caste candidate. It may be stated herein that the Petitioner performed well In the interview and it was learnt from the Chairman of the Selection Committee, who was the Principal of the J.N. College, Boko, that the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1 at the select list, in order of merit.

That para 6 is verified to be true to his knowledge. But the college authority without making any appointment made a fresh advertisement for the post and the in the second advertisement it omitted the requirement of special subject paper. It is stated that this omission was with a motive to deprive the Petitioner and the Petitioner challenged the issue of the second advertisement and that was Civil Rule No. 2594/92. On 29.9.92 this Court passed the following order:

In the meanwhile, the Respondents are directed not to take any action in terms of the advertisement made on 20.9.92 (Annexure 4 to the petition).

Subsequently this matter came up for order on 15.10.92 and this Court passed the following order:

Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Sharma submits that the writ Petitioner has got the relief sought for as the impugned advertisement dated 20.9.92 has been cancelled and withdrawn by the Respondents as per notice published on 14.10.92 in the Assam Tribune.

Mr. Ali submits that he has no information from his client. In view of the submission made by Mr. Sharma, the writ petition is infructuous and accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

The authority however did not accept the recommendation of the earlier selection committee and decided to hold a fresh interview and accordingly fresh interview was held on 22.10.92. But the Petitioner was not appointed. Subsequently a fresh advertisement was made for the post of lecturer in Political Science on 2.11.92 and that advertisement is at Annexure-8 to the writ application. That is quoted below:

The undersigned invites applications with full bio-data from intending eligible and qualified candidates having UGC norms for the post of a lecturer in political science of the B.P. Chaliha College, Nagarbera, within seven days from the date of its publication. Preference will be given to those who have sociology or teaching experience in the subject of sociology, persons in employ must apply through proper channel.

Interview will be held on 10.11.92 at 10 a.m. No separate correspondence will be made in this regard.

Principal & Secretary, B.P. Chaliha College, Nagarbcra, P.O. Nagarbera, District Kamrup, PIN 781127.

It is stated that this fresh advertisement is absolutely arbitrary. A representation was submitted to Respondent No. 2 but that was not disposed of as yet and the Respondent proceeded on the basis of the advertisement dated 2.11.92 quoted above.

In this writ application it is prayed that the fresh advertisement dated 2.11.92 (Annexure-8) should be quashed and a direction may be issued to appoint the Petitioner as lecturer.

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents 3, 4 and 5. It is stated that the Petitioner appeared before the interview board dated 20.10.92 and to one of the question in that interview he replied as follows:

...As for the claim that he had done reasonably well" in the interview, the answer received by the selection committee to the question as to who the third President of the country was, was "Lal Bahadur Snastri" and that too from a prospective teacher of Political Science, therefore speaks volumes about the performance/ability of the Petitioner.

It is further started in the affidavit that the Petitioner did not possess the prescribed UGC norms and, therefore, was not eligible for appointment. There was the necessity for fresh advertisement, as no suitable person earlier was found and it is stated that on the basis of the interview and the educational career, Respondent No. 6 was selected and he was appointed in the college and the appointment was sent for approval to the DPI. The Petitioner is not entitled to any preference being a Scheduled Caste candidate as there was only one post and the question of reservation docs not arise.

An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Petitioner wherein the earlier statements in the writ application have been reiterated. An affidavit also has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6 wherein it is stated that the Petitioner did not qualify for appointment as Lecturer as he had no norms.

I have heard Mr. A. Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6.

The question of selection of teacher in colleges is governed by the laws relating to Aided Colleges in Assam. The laws on this point are as follows:

The Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976.

The Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981.

The Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960.

To decide the controversy in this case, we are not concerned with the first and second rules, that is, The Assam Aided College Management Rules 1976 and The Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981. The rule, that is, The Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 provides the method of recruitment of Principal, Professors and Lecturers. In pursuance of this rule, the advertisement was made and the interview board was constituted and Respondent No. 6 was found to be eligible for appointment.

The contentions of the Petitioner are as follows:

There was violation of Rule 18 of Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 (para 19 of the writ petition)

Violation of provisions of Assam Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies) in Services, 1978.

Violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Let us have a look at Rule 18 of the Management Rules. That rule is quoted below:

The proceedings of the Governing Body''s meeting of Aided Colleges under deficit system of grant-in-aid shall be sent to the Director of Public Instruction and to the Gauhati University or Dibrugarh University and no final decision regarding appointment, promotions, suspension termination, removal or dismissal of teaching or non-teaching staff including the Principal or construction involving Rs. 5,000,00 or more shall be taken without prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction. The proceeding books shall be kept open for inspection by any officer of the Education Department and the Gauhau University/Dibrugarh University.

So far as other Aided Colleges are concerned, the Governing Bodies are not required to send the proceedings of the meeting to the Director of Public Instruction but it will be open for the Director of Public Instruction to call for the proceedings of the meeting if any complaint is received against the Governing Body arising in any of the matters referred to in para above and any direction given thereon by the Director of Public Instruction shall be final and binding to the Governing Body.

A bare perusal of this Rule will show that in the instant case there was no violation of Rule 18. So, the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondents violated Rule 18 of the aforesaid rules is liable to be rejected the same has no force. The second contention is that the Petitioner is entitled to preference under the Act of 1978. There was only one post of lecturer and in that view of that matter, question of reservation under the Act of 1978 docs not arise. So this contention also has no force. The third contention of the Petitioner is that there was violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This contention also has no force as no materials have been placed as to how the Petitioner was discriminated or as to how the right of equality was denied to him. Accordingly there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.