Tripura High Court

Smt. Purabi Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 24 April, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                               Page 1 of 12




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                          WP(C) 587 of 2024

      Smt. Purabi Debbarma
      daughter of Sri Kshirode Ranjan Debbarma,
      resident of Beltali, A.D. Nagar,
      Agartala, P.S. A.D. Nagar,
      District- West Tripura, PIN-799003
                                              ......Petitioner(s)

                               Versus

      1. The State of Tripura,
         represented by the Secretary to the Government of
         Tripura, Department of Higher Education, P.O. Kunjaban,
         P.S. N.C.C., District- West Tripura, PIN- 799006

      2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, to the Government
         of Tripura, Department of Higher Education, New Capital
         Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C., District- West
         Tripura, PIN- 799006.
      3. The Director of Higher Education,
         Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex,
         P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura,
         PIN- 799006.

      4. The Principal,
         Tripura Institute of Technology,
         Narsingarh, Airport Road, Singerbil, P.O. Agartala,
         P.S. Airport Police Station, District- West Tripura,
         PIN- 799009.

                                              .......Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate Mr. Bikram Paul, Advocate Ms. Rumpa Dey, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A. Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment & order : 24.04.2025.

Whether fit for reporting :     Yes                         ______





             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
               J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

Heard Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, learned

G.A. representing the State respondents.

[2] This present petition is filed under Section 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

"i. Admit the petition,

ii. Call for the records from the custody of the respondents;

iii. As to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued for commanding/ directing the respondent Nos. 2 to quash the impugned Order vide No. F.10(874)DHE/LA/2023/1417(02) dated 21.05.2024.

iv As to why a writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued for commending/directing the respondents to designate the petitioner as Assistant Professor under the aforesaid respondents.

v. As to why a writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued for commending/directing the respondents to fix the appropriate pay scale along with Academic Grade Pay (ADP) and increment for Ph.D. holders for the post of Assistant Professor as per UGC Guidelines.

vi. After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule Absolute in terms of prayer (iii), (iv) and (v) above;

vii. Costs of an incidental to this proceeding............"

[3] The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was

appointed on 01.08.2007 to the post of Senior Programmer

(Computer), (Group-B Gazetted) in the Polytechnic Institute, now

Tripura Institute of Technology (TIT for short), Narsingarh under the

Education (Higher) Department, Government of Tripura. The

petitioner obtained M. Tech degree in Computer Science and

Engineering Discipline from NIT Agartala, in the year 2014. She

initially appointed as Senior Programmer (Computer) provisionally

for two years against the vacant post of senior programmer of

Polytechnic Institute (now TIT) in the year 2007-2008. After

completion of provisional period the petitioner permanently

appointed as a Senior Programmer (Computer). It is contended that

as per the Recruitment Rule (RR for short) of Senior Programmer

under TIT, the required qualification is B.E./B.Tech and the nature

of work of the Senior Programmer (Computer) is to define, develop,

test, analyze and maintain new software applications in support of

the achievement of various course. But, the petitioner is rendering

the duties at TIT Narsingarh under the Department of Higher

Education, Government of Tripura since the day of her inception to

the service like conducting Theory and Practical classes, paper

setting, paper evaluation, exams/ seasonal conduction carrying out

the responsibility of lab in-charge, maintaining MIS software for TIT

and many other basic academic duties that any regular faculty

Assistant Professor) carry out throughout a season.

[4] According to the petitioner, she has performed the duty

and responsibility which is similar to the post of assistant professor.

As such, she cannot be deprived of the right of equal pay for equal

work. The petitioner has submitted several representations before

the Respondent No. 3 for absorption of the post of Assistant

Professor but the Department did not reply to those

representations. Thereafter, being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a

writ petition, before this Court, vide WP(C) No. 556 of 2023 and this

Court, on 01.09.2023, passed a Judgment and Order in WP(C)

556/2023 directing the respondents to consider the representations

dated 14.11.2022, 13.03.2023 and 29.05.2023 of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner on 06.09.2023, submitted a fresh

representation intimating the Judgment and Order dated

01.09.2023 and the respondent No. 2 forwarded the said

representation to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has

passed an order vide No. F.10(874)DHE/LA/2023/1417(02) dated

21st May, 2024 in respect of the representation made by the

petitioner informing that consideration for promotion/absorption of

the petitioner into the post of Assistant Profession in Technical

Colleges under (Higher) Department, Govt. of Tripura is regretted.

Again on 22.07.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation to

the respondent No.3 praying to absorb the petitioner as Assistant

Professor by implementing a new scheme. But, the respondents

neither give any reply to the said representation dated 22.07.2024

nor take any steps to implement a new scheme. Being aggrieved,

the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the afore-

quoted reliefs.

[5] Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that as per the RR of Senior Programmer under TIT, the

required qualifications is B.E./B.Tech. The nature of work of the

Senior Programmer (Computer) is to define, develop, test, analyze

and maintain new software applications in support of the

achievement of various courses but, the petitioner herein, rendering

the duties under TIT, Narsingarh under the Department of Higher

Education, Government of Tripura, since the day of her inception to

the service she has been performing duties like any regular faculty

(Assistant Professor) carry out throughout the session. It is

submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since, she performs the

duty and responsibility which is similar to the post of Assistant

Professor, under such circumstances, denial of the designation of

the Assistant Professor to the petitioner along with the relevant pay

scale to the post of Assistant Professor as per the UGC Guidelines is

denial of the right of the petitioner of equal pay for equal work. To

support her submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on

paragraph- 13 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Arindam Chatttopadhyay and others v. State of West Bengal

and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 152 which reads as under:

"13. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that although the

appellants were recruited as ACDPOs, the State Government

transferred and posted them to work as CDPOs in ICDS Projects. If

this would have been a stopgap arrangement for few months or

the appellants had been given additional charge of the posts of

CDPO for a fixed period, they could not have legitimately claimed

salary in the scale of the higher post i.e. CDPO. However, the fact

of the matter is that as on the date of filing of the original

application before the Tribunal, the appellants had continuously

worked as CDPOs for almost 4 years and as on the date of filing of

the writ petition, they had worked on the higher post for about 6

years. By now, they have worked as CDPOs for almost 14 years

and discharged the duties of the higher post. It is neither the

pleaded case of the respondents nor has any material been

produced before this Court to show that the appellants have not

been discharging the duties of the post of CDPO or the degree of

their responsibility is different from other CDPOs. Rather, they

have tacitly admitted that the appellants are working as full-

fledged CDPOs since July 1999. Therefore, there is no legal or

other justification for denying them salary and allowances of the

post of CDPO on the pretext that they have not been promoted in

accordance with the Rules. The convening of the Promotion

Committee or taking other steps for filling up the post of CDPO by

promotion is not in the control of the appellants. Therefore, they

cannot be penalised for the Government's failure to undertake the

exercise of making regular promotions."

[6] Ms. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel for the petitioner

further contends that on 21.09.2022, a Notification vide No. F.

1(716)DHE/Estt(G)/2022/2728 has been issued by the concerned

authorities in compliance of the Judgment, dated 16.03.2021 arising

upon W.A. No. 201 to 205 of 2021 in WP(C) 1391 to 1395 of 2019,

passed by this Court. Accordingly, the Department has framed the

scheme, on 21.09.2022, to designate Post Graduate Teachers

(PGTs) working in Higher Education Institutes for absorbing in the

post of Assistant Professor. She, therefore, urges this Court to

direct the respondents to designate the petitioner as Assistant

Professor under them setting aside the impugned order dated

21.05.2024 passed by the respondent.

[7] On the contrary, Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, learned

G.A. opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He

contends that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Programmer in

the discipline of Computer Science and Engineering in Tripura

Institute of Technology, Narsingarh (erstwhile Polytechnic Institute)

as per Recruitment Rules (RRs) N.F.1(10-18)-DHE/94 dated

27.02.1996 and as per existing RRs, there is no scope for promotion

into the post of Assistant Professor under the Department. The

attribute of the post of Senior Programmer is principally limited to

demonstrating the computer programmes in Laboratories at

Technical Institution, besides others assignments entrusted by the

Principal from time to time. The petitioner willingly accepted the

Offer & Appointment vide Memo. No.F.1(674)-DHE/Estt(G)/2006

dated 10.07.2007, including the terms and conditions vide no.2(iii)

as "Others conditions of service will be governed by the relevant

rules and orders in force from time to time" and accordingly, she

had joined the post of Senior Programmer on 01.08.2007. Thus, her

service will be governed by recruitment rules.

[8] It is further contended that the post of Asst. Professor in

Tripura Institute of Technology (TIT) is a direct recruitment post to

be appointed through competitive selection process by the Public

Service Commission. There is no scope for the Senior Programmer

of TIT to be upgraded to the post of Asst. Professor and the

submission made on behalf of the petitioner is contrary to the

guidelines framed by the All India Council for Technical Education

(AICTE) and the same cannot be considered by the State

respondents. To support his contention, learned G.A. has placed

reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

1. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 173.

2. Order dated 29th August, 2024, passed in Shri Metongmeren AO, (IAS Retd.) v. The State of Nagaland, case No. Civil Appeal No. 10034 of 2011.

[9] Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. also submits that under

the Higher Education Department the eligible PGTs who are in

regular service and fulfils the eligible criteria for the post of

Assistant Professor are only absorbed in pursuant to the direction of

this Court passed in WA No. 201 to 205 in W.P(C) No. 1391 to 1395

of 2019 as per the scheme vide notification dated 21.09.2022 and

the same is specifically meant for the PGTs working in the Govt.

(General) Degree College and accordingly, the said scheme is not

applicable for the post of senior programmer. He, therefore, urges

this Court to dismiss the instant petition filed by the petitioner.

[10] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the

material evidence on record. Counter-affidavit has also been filed

on behalf of the respondents.

[11] It is seen from record that on 06.09.2023, the petitioner

has submitted a representation alongwith the judgment and order

of this Court dated 01.09.2023 passed in WP(C) 556 of 2023 and

subsequently, the concerned respondent has passed the impugned

order dated 21.05.2024 in the following manner:

".......WHEREAS, Smt. Purabi Debbarma, Senior Programmer in the discipline of Computer Science and Engineering in Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh (erstwhile Polytechnic Institute) was recruited under Recruitment Rules N.F 1(10-18)-DHE/94 dated 27.02.1996 and as per existing RRs, there is no scope to attain promotion into the post of Assistant Professor under the Department. The attribute of the post of Senior Programmer principally limited to demonstrating the computer programmes in Laboratories at Technical Institution, besides others assignments entrusted by the principal from time to time:

AND

WHEREAS, the petitioner willingly accepted the Offer & Appointment vide Memo.No.F.1(674)-DHE/Estt(G)/2006 dated 10.07.2007 with a terms and conditions vide no.2(iii) as "Others conditions of service will be governed by the relevant rules and orders in force from time to time" and accordingly, she had joined to the post of Senior Programmer on 01.08.200;thus, her service will be in force as per aforesaid recruitment rules,

AND

WHEREAS, the petitioner may possessacademic qualification for the Post of Assistant Professor, but, without going through a specific selection process as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of Assistant Professor for Technical Colleges, adopted by the Govt. of Tripura, in line with AICTE Regulation's 2019, through Public Service Commission, cannot be appointed to the Post of Assistant Professorin Technical Colleges as this is direct entry post.

AND

WHEREAS, the scheme notified vide No.F.1(716) DHE/Estt(G)/2022 dated 21.09.2022 in compliance of interim order passed on 16.03.2021 arising upon W.A No.201-205 of 2021 in W.P(C) No.1391 to 1395 was framed for absorbing Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) into the scale of pay of Assistant Professor who are imparting teaching learning process in the General Degree Colleges considering the terms and conditions of the said scheme only meant for PGTsworking under Govt. General Degree Colleges;

NOW, THEREFORE, after proper examination of the representations of Smt. Purabi Debbarma following recruitment rules of the post of the Assistant Professor framed as per the AICTE norms, this department hereby regrets for considering promotion/absorption into the post of Assistant Professor in Technical Colleges under Education (Higher) Department. Govt. of Tripura. This speaking order is issued in compliance to the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P(C) No.556/2023."

[12] Admittedly, it seen from record that the petitioner was

appointed as Senior Programmer in the discipline of Computer

Science and Engineering in Tripura Institute of Technology,

Narsingarh (erstwhile Polytechnic Institute) as per Recruitment

Rules (RRs) and as per the existing RRs, there is no scope to attain

promotion/absorption into the post of Assistant Professor without

proper selection process through Public Service Commission

following Recruitment Rules of Assistant Professor of Technical

Institute under AICTE. Therefore, to examine the case of the

petitioner, the relevant contents of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design

Officers Association and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine

SC 173 is extracted as under:

"......9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it deserves to be noted that the power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. It has been consistently held by this Court in plethora of decisions that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.

10. In State of U.P. v J.P. Chaurasia, while answering the questions as to whether the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad were entitled to pay scale admissible to the Section Officers and whether the creation of two grades with different scales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries who were doing the same and similar work was violative of the right to have "equal pay for equal work" This Court observed as under:-

"18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often

functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."***************

15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per the SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOS (Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and the promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria. There was not a single error, much less grave error pointed out by learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Khurshid, in the fixation of the pay scales for the JDOS and CTOs, which would have justified the interference of the Tribunal.

16. Much emphasis was placed by the learned senior advocate Mr. Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Department in the file recommending pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOS, however, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government.

17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.

18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOS, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOS.