Tomojit Dhar vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7481 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Tomojit Dhar vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 19 September, 2025

                                                               Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010202092025




                                                        undefined

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

                            Case No. : WA/292/2025

         TOMOJIT DHAR
         S/O LATE BENU DHAR, R/O SATI JOYMATI PATH,
         OPP. SRIPURIA P.O., TINSUKIA, P
         .O. SRIPURIA, P.S. HIJUGURI,
         DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786145



         VERSUS

         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
                                                                          Page No.# 2/5



     For the appellant      :    Ms. S. Sarma Hazarika, Advocate
     For the respondents    :    Mr. A.R. Tahbildar,

S.C., Higher Education for

-BEFORE-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 19-09-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Ms. S. Sarma Hazarika, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department for 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 June, 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 Page No.# 3/5

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 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 Page No.# 4/5

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 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.

Page No.# 5/5

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