Rajeeb Sharma Tamuly vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 202 Gua

                                                                        Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010060132020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1933/2020

            RAJEEB SHARMA TAMULY
            S/O. SRI DEBANAND SHARMA TAMULY, R/O. PANITOLA T.E., P.O.
            PANITOLA, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, TECHNICAL
            EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

            2:THE DY. SECRETARY
            TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPTT.
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI-781019
            ASSAM.

            3:THE JOINT SECRETARY
            TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPTT.
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI-781019
            ASSAM.

            4:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

             ASSAM
             KAHILIPARA
             GUWAHATI-781019
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY
                                                                            Page No.# 2/7


Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU




                                BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                     JUDGMENT

Date : 21-01-2022

Heard Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 being Technical Education Department of the Govt. of Assam.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Workshop Superintendent of Polytechnic under Technical Education Service Rule, 1981 which post is stated to be equivalent to the post of lecturer (technical) in Polytechnic. The appointment was made as per the order dated 25.03.1995 of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Eduction (CTM) Department at HRH The Prince of Wales Institute, Jorhat in the scale of pay of Rs. 2275-60- 2395-80-2875-EB-100-3575-125-4450/- p.m.

3. This petition is instituted on the grievance that as per the communication dated 20.05.2004 of the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher and Technical Department) providing for AICTE recommendation as regards the recruitment of lecturer and career advancement scheme in Polytechnic in Assam, the petitioner would be entitled to the Lecturer (senior scale) and Lecturer (selection grade) upon satisfying the eligibility criteria provided therein. But inspite of the petitioner having satisfied the required eligibility criteria, the aforesaid benefit of Lecturer (senior scale) and Lecturer (selection grade) had not been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner refers to the provision in Clause-F and G of the communication dated 20.05.2004 which is extracted as below:-

Page No.# 3/7

"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) Participate in one orientation course/induction training and one refresher course or industrial raining of aggregate duration of 8 weeks, or has undertaken other appropriate continuing education or training program of comparable quality and duration as may be specified or approved by AICTE. Those with Ph.D degree would be exempted from these course training requirements. G. Lecturer (Selection Grade) A Senior lecturer (senior scale) who has a Master's degree and 5 years experience as Senior lecturer(senior scale) and has consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports will he eligible to he placed as lecturer (selection Grade) subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. "

4. A reading of Clause F of the communication dated 20.05.2004 would go to show that in order to be eligible for the Lecturer (senior scale) the lecturer would have to participate in one orientation course/induction training and one refresher course or industrial training of aggregate duration of eight weeks. It further provides that in the alternative the lecturer may also undertake other appropriate continuing education or training program of comparable quality and duration as may be specified or approved by AICTE. The petitioner refers to the order dated 29.10.1997 of the Princpal H.R.H the Prince of Walse Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jorhat to substantiate that he had undertaken induction training program at Technical Teachers Training Institute Calcutta-01

from 3rd Nov/97 to 28th Nov/97 and accordingly states that he had completed a period of 4 weeks induction training. The petitioner further refers to a certificate issued by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited , Eastern Regional Page No.# 4/7

Business Centre dated 11.09.1998 which certifies that the petitioner had successfully completed industrial training in the field of Auto repair & Maintenance at Automobile Workshop and Central Workshop, ONGC, ERBC, Sibasagar for a period of one month from 10.08.1988 to 09.09.98

5. It is stated that the period of industrial training undertaken by the petitioner in the ONGC is also of a duration of four weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that the aggregate period of induction training and the industrial training he had undertaken would be eight weeks and therefore would meet the requirement of Clause-F of the communication dated 20.05.2004.

6. The respondents in their affidavit has taken the stand which is extracted as below:-

"The petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements of minimum training programme to be attended for placement to higher grade like Lecturer (Senior Scale) as per provisions of the clause F of the above Govt. OM dated 20.05.2004. As per documents furnished in regards to training programme attended by the petitioner, he attended one 2 (two) weeks summer school in June-July/1995 and another 4 (four) weeks Induction Training programme. during November 1997 conducted by the Institutions recognized/approved by the AICTE which were before regularization of his service"

7. A reading of the stand of the respondents in the affidavit makes it discernible that the same training undertaken by the petitioner for two weeks summer school in June-July/1995 and another four weeks induction training during November, 1997 were before the regularization of his service which is stated to be in the year 2004. Accordingly, the respondent exclude the said training course undertaken by the petitioner and takes only another one week training the petitioner had undertaken February, 2005 which was conducted by an institute approved by the AICTE.

Page No.# 5/7

8. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Technical Education Department in course of the hearing takes a further stand that the industrial training undertaken by the petitioner under the ONGC is not an institute recognized by the AICTE and therefore, the same cannot be construed to be sufficient compliance of the requirement of Clause-F.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the

petitioner had undertaken a four weeks training from 3 rd November 1997 to

28th November, 1997 at Teachers Training Institute, Calcutta which according to the order dated 29.10.1997 is an induction training programme. The induction training programme is one of the acceptable training programme as per Clause- F of the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2004 and therefore, it cannot be construed that the said training program would be unacceptable in case of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondent in the affidavit that the said program was undertaken by the petitioner prior to his regularization would also have to be unacceptable inasmuch as Clause-F does not provide anywhere that the training program would have to be post regularization and not during the period of service of the incumbent concerned and further as the requirement is of undertaking an induction training program, we have to understand that the induction training would have to be at the beginning of the period of service that the incumbent may render in the department and it cannot be understood that the induction would be at a much later stage in his career only after when the person concerned may be formally regularized. In either view of the matter, we are unable to accept the said contention that the period of four weeks of induction training undertaken by the petitioner as per the order dated 29.10.1997 as available in Annexure-IV shall be unacceptable towards requirement of Clause-F of the office memorandum dated 20.05.2004.

Page No.# 6/7

10. With regard to the industrial training course undertaken by the petitioner from 10.08.1998 to 09.09.1998 in the ONGCL, the said stood rejected by the respondent authorities by taking the stand that it was not an institute approved by the AICTE and that under Clause-F there is a requirement that such industrial training would also have to be in an institute recognized by AICTE. The very submission that the industrial training would have to be in an institute recognized by the AICTE itself appears to be incoherent. The industrial training can be undertaken in an industrial establishment and an industrial establishment has nothing to do with the AICTE for its approval. The requirement of Clause-F is that the person concerned must have participated in one orientation course/induction training or refresher course or industrial training for aggregate duration of eight weeks.

11. If one given incumbent has not participated in one orientation course/induction training and one refresher course or industrial training of aggregate duration of eight weeks, Clause F provides that in the alternative such incumbent may undertake other appropriate continuing education or training programme of comparable quality and duration as may be specified or approved by the AICTE. We are of the view that the alternative provision of Clause F for undertaking other appropriate continuing education or training programme of comparable quality and duration would have to be recognized as may be specified by the AICTE. The requirement of being specified or approved by the AICTE is only with the alternative training programme and cannot be related to the industrial training which is a part of the original provision and not an alternative provision. As the petitioner has successfully undertaken the industrial training in the ONGCL Sivasagar, we are of the view that the same cannot be rejected merely by taking the stand that the training was not Page No.# 7/7

approved by the AICTE.

12. Of course a question would remain as to the nature and standard of the industrial establishment where the industrial training was undertaken. We leave it open to the respondent authorities to arrive at its conclusion as regards the nature and standard of the industrial establishment where such training has to be undertaken and express the view whether the ONGCL meets the requirement of such standard. It is further directed to apply its mind and take a decision on the said aspect.

13. In view of the conclusion arrived hereinabove, we direct the Director of Higher(Technical) Education Assam to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Lecturer (Senior Scale) and thereafter to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) depending upon his qualifications and other eligibility criteria and pass a reasoned order thereon without insisting that the two training periods referred above were prior to the petitioner being regularized in service.

It is stated that the petitioner would retire from service in July 2022.

14. In view of the above, the Director of Higher(Technical) Education Assam shall do the needful as per the established procedure and to ensure that the same is completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

15. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant