Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors Represented ... on 15 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010201982025
2025:GAU-AS:12499-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/286/2025
RATHIN BANERJEE
S/O SRI RANJIT BANERJEE, R/O WEST SRIPURIA, HARISABHA ROAD
TINSUKIA, P.O. SRIPURIA, P.S. HIJUGURI, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786145
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE
DIRECTOR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019
3:THE PRINCIPAL TINSUKIA COMMERCE COLLEGE
TINSUKIA P.O. SRIPURIA 786145 ASSAM.
4:THE PRESIDENT GOVERNING BODY TINSUKIA COMMERCE COLLEGE
TINSUKIA P.O. SRIPURIA 786145 ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. S. Sarma Hazarika, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Das, Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department for
respondent Nos.1 & 2.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
15.09.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Ms. S. Sarma Hazarika, learned Advocate for the appellant
and Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department for
Page No.# 2/4
respondent Nos.1 & 2.
The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.5617/2024, whereby the prayer
made by the appellant has been rejected.
The appellant, it appears, was first appointed as a Contractual Faculty
Member in the Department of Commerce in Tinsukia Commerce College through an
appointment letter dated 10.07.2013 for the session starting from July, 2013 to
December, 2013 and subsequently for the session commencing from January, 2014
to December, 2014. His contractual engagement was extended by another
appointment letter dated 10.01.2014, determining his contract up-to 15.12.2014.
It appears that even after the expiry of this period, the appellant was
verbally directed by the College Authorities to continue in service. The appellant
accordingly discharged his duties without break or blemish in his performance for
several years. His presence as a Faculty Member in the College helped the
Institution to attain Grade-A accreditation in the assessment done by the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). The appellant's presence in the
faculty along with other contractual staff was relied upon by the College Authorities
to maintain the required student-teacher ratio, which was one of the important
facets in the determination for granting grades under the NAAC.
However, the appellant grieves that despite this, vide Office Memorandum
dated 18.02.2019, the Governing Body of the Tinsukia Commerce College, in its
meeting held on 11.09.2023, resolved that all temporary teachers in the stream of
Commerce would henceforth be engaged only for 89 days due to paucity of funds
and in consonance with the Policy decisions of the Government.
Consequently, the appellant was served with a fresh appointment order
dated 29.09.2023, restricting his engagement for a period of 89 days on
contractual terms and conditions. Because of this, the salary of the appellant was
Page No.# 3/4
also withheld from October, 2023 onwards. His representations to the College
Authorities remained unanswered and the learned Single Judge also did not agree
to interfere with the decision of appointing the appellant on contractual basis for a
limited period of 89 days. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Single
Judge granted liberty to the appellant and similarly placed teachers to approach
the College Authorities by submitting applications if they at all wish to continue as
contractual faculty but strictly in terms of the Governing Body's decision.
The appellant has raised objection on the ground that the learned Single
Judge did not at all advert to the legitimate expectation of the appellant for being
at least given contractual appointment for whole of the session. It was a violation
of Article 14 in the sense that the appellant was treated as a contractual faculty for
only 89 days despite comparable work and tenure with the regular staff. This,
according to the appellant, is arbitrary and discriminatory.
The appellant has thus prayed that he was entitled for regularization of
service in the light of long and uninterrupted performance of regular duties despite
the initial appointment being contractual.
The continuation of the appellant in the College as a Contractual Faculty
would definitely not clothe him with a right to claim regularization against a
sanctioned post.
It appears from the records that the Government of Assam in the Higher
Education Department, vide Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2019, has barred the
provincialised Colleges from engaging any person as a teaching/non-teaching staff
where no sanctioned post exists for the purpose.
The Governing Body of the College in question, namely, Tinsukia
Commerce College, is under an obligation to comply with the said direction
contained in the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2019, referred to above.
Notwithstanding this, the Governing Body of the College had noticed and
Page No.# 4/4
realized that the continuance of the services of the Contractual Faculties would be
necessary for providing uninterrupted classes to the students. With this
background fact and assessment, the Governing Body of the College proceeded to
resolve the issue by appointing Contractual Faculty afresh for a period of 89 days in
view of the restrictions imposed on the authorities and also for the reason of the
financial constraints faced by the College.
The contractual engagement of the appellant had ended in the year 2023,
which was never extended.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, was absolutely justified in not
exercising his judicial discretion in substituting that decision of the Authorities of
the College. The period of contractual engagement of the appellant could not have
been extended beyond 89 days. It was only in this circumstance that an
observation was made by the learned Single Judge that in case the appellant would
require his services to be continued for 89 days in a year, he could approach the
College Administration and in that event, the College Administration shall look into
such request and pass necessary order(s) accordingly.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned.
There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
