Gauhati High Court
Santanu Acharjee vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 3 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010007292021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/283/2021
SANTANU ACHARJEE
S/O LATE SIBU ACHARJEE
RESIDENT OF C/O SAKTI PR. MUKHERJEE, HOUSE NO. 92, PUBERUN
ROAD, SATGAON, PO UDAYAN VIHAR, GUWAHATI 781171, KAMRUP M
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF
ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6, KAMRUP M
ASSAM
2:DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI 19
ASSAM
3:PRINCIPAL
DEBRAJ RAY COLLEGE
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 785621
4:PRESIDENT
GOVERNING BODY
DEBRAJ RAY COLLEGE
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 78562
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U B SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 03-03-2021
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. UB Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel
for the Higher Education Department, Government of Assam.
2. Considering the nature of the grievance raised and urged upon at the time of taking up the writ
petition, we do not find the respondents No.3 and 4 to be necessary party in this writ proceeding, as
such the said respondents are deleted from the array of respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics of DR
College Golaghat on 05.06.2017. In course of his service in the DR College, the petitioner participated
in a selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics in the
Gauhati University and on being successful, an order of appointment dated 23.01.2020 was issued in
favour of the petitioner.
4. As per Clause 5 of the order of appointment, the appointment of the petitioner was on probation
for a period of one year from the date of his joining. As a measure of precaution, the petitioner
submitted an application before the Director of Higher Education Assam on 30.01.2020 which was
routed through the Principal of DR College, requesting for a lien for a period of one year w.e.f.
02.04.2020. By the said application, the petitioner also informed that the Principal of the DR College
was requested to relieve him from 02.03.2020. As it transpires from the materials on record, the said
application for lien dated 30.01.2020 of the petitioner was not given a consideration by the Director of
Higher Education, Assam. On the other hand, there is a communication dated 22.12.2020 from the
Page No.# 3/4
Principal of DR College Golaghat addressed to the petitioner that the Governing Body of the DR
College and the Director of Higher Education, Assam had disapproved the request for lien of the
petitioner and, therefore, he was permanently released from the post of Assistant Professor in the
Department of Mathematics.
5. The procedure for grant of lien is provided under Rule 23 of the Assam College Employees
(Provincialisation) Rules 2010 (for short, the Rules of 2010) which is extracted as below:
"Lien, deputation and study leave to the employees of the Assam Provincialised Colleges
shall be granted by the Government for which proposals shall be routed through the Director.
The norms applicable to Government Colleges would be applicable in their cases."
6. A reading of Rule 23 goes to show that the lien or deputation to the employees of the Assam
Provincialised Colleges shall be granted by the Government for which the proposal should be routed
through the Director.
7. It being the procedure prescribed by the Rules, the application for lien of the petitioner dated
30.01.2020 ought to have been processed by the Director and forwarded to the Government for its
appropriate decision.
8. A reading of the communication dated 22.12.2020 does not indicate that the Director had
followed the procedure under Rule 23 of the Rules of 2010, inasmuch as, the communication simply
provides that the lien was disapproved by the Governing Body of the DR College and the Director of
Higher Education, Assam, whereas Rule 23 provides none of the two authorities to be the appropriate
authority to take a decision in the matter.
9. Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department has raised the apprehension
that the application of the petitioner dated 30.01.2020 may not have reached the Director for its
consideration. There is no answer to such objection being raised, but we have taken note of that
there is an endorsement by the Principal of DR College, Golaghat that the application dated
30.01.2020 submitted by the petitioner had been forwarded to the Director and, accordingly, we are
Page No.# 4/4
to understand that it was so done.
10. To remove the apprehension raised by Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education
Department, we require the petitioner to submit a duplicate copy of the application dated 30.01.2020
to the Director of Higher Education, Assam afresh.
11. Upon the duplicate copy of the application dated 30.01.2020 being submitted by the petitioner,
the Director may proceed with the said application as per Rule 23 of the Rules of 2010 and do the
needful to present it before the Government for its appropriate decision.
12. The duplicate copy of the application dated 30.01.2020 be provided by the petitioner before the
Director of Higher Education Assam within a period of seven days from today and thereafter, within a
period of another two weeks, the Director of Higher Education, Assam may process and forward the
same to the Government and the Government may take a decision within a period of one month
thereafter.
13. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
