AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
There is none to represent Respondent No.6 i.e. the Finance Department, Assam.
Petitioner claims grant of Senior Scale in the post of Lecturer with effect from 13.07.2000 instead of 16.06.2006. The basis for making such claim
are on the following facts. On 13.07.1994 the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Electrical Engineering in Dibrugarh Polytechnic with regular
scale of pay and on the same date she joined service. Having completed 6(six) years of service as on 13.07.2000, she claimed entitlement to senior
scale on the basis of the Government Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2004. The relevant portion pertaining to placement of Lecturer in senior scale
is extracted hereunder:
“F. Lecturer (Senior Scale) A lecturer will be eligible for placement as lecturer senior scale through a process of selection if he/she has.
(i) Completed 6 years of service after regular appointment as a lecturer with relaxation of 2 years for those with Ph.D and one year for those with
M.Phil/ME/M.Tech.
(ii) Participated in one orientation course/induction training and one refresher course or industrial training of aggregate duration of 8 weeks or has
undertaken other appropriate recruiting education or training programme of comparable quality and duration as may be specified or approved by
AICTE. Those with Ph.D. degree would be excepted from those course training requirements.â€
Whether the petitioner is at all entitled to senior scale with effect from 13.07.2000 must be weighed having regard to the conditions stipulated in
Clause F of the said Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2004. A mere perusal of the same shows that placement of Lecturer in Senior Scale is not
automatic on expiry of 6 years of service but has to come through a process of selection. Over and above, a candidate to be eligible to be placed as
Lecturer (Senior Scale) must have participated in one orientation course/induction training together with one refresher course or industrial training of
aggregate duration of 8 weeks, besides other conditions with which we are not concerned with in the present writ petition.
The petitioner have annexed Certificates to support her eligibility for grant of senior scale at Annexure- 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the writ petition as well as
Annexure-10F in her affidavit-in-reply. Annexure-6 pertains to a Certificate showing that the petitioner had participated in an AICTE sponsored
induction training programme for the period from 02.03.1998 to 27.03.1998. However, in respect of the other pre-condition of having one refresher
course or industrial training of aggregate duration of 8 weeks, the Certificates enclosed at Annexure-7, 8, 9 and 10F, as stated above, do not go to
meet the requirement. Taken together, the said Certificates at Annexure-7, 8, 9 and 10F, miserably falls short of the required aggregate of 8 weeks in
either a refresher course or industrial training course.
In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.4, categorical stand is taken by referring to Clause F of the Office Memorandum, stating
that the petitioner was not eligible for placement as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 13.07.2000. A perusal of the said Office Memorandum,
particularly Clause F thereof, vindicates the stand of the respondents taken in its affidavit-in-opposition. It is clear that going by the conditions
precedent for placing a Lecturer in the Senior Scale, the petitioner is not eligible for the relief claimed in the present writ petition.
Mr. Sarma relies on a judgment of this Court dated 19.04.2014 passed in WP(C) 1346/2013 by contending that person similarly situated was
granted the benefit by modifying the date of effect of grant of Senior Scale. I have gone through the judgment referred to and find that the same is
factually different from the case in hand. In the said WP(C) 1346/2013 the Court have held that there was no dispute that the petitioner had
participated in one orientation course/induction training and one refresher course or industrial training of aggregate duration of 8 weeks. It was only
under that circumstance that relief was given to the writ petitioner in the said WP(C) 1346/2013. In so far as the present case is concerned and, as
observed above, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that during the initial 6(six) years of service she had participated in one refresher course or
industrial training of aggregate duration of 8 weeks. The case relied upon cannot come to the aid of the petitioner herein.
For all the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.