Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Library Assistant at Janapriya College in 2006
Source reference: p. 6In 2010, the college allegedly appointed him as an Assistant Librarian
Source reference: p. 8When the State provincialized services under the Act of 2018, the private respondent (Respondent No. 7), originally a Junior Assistant, was provincialized in the post of Library Assistant
Source reference: p. 8Petitioner’s claim for provincialization as Assistant Librarian was rejected via a speaking order dated 28.08.2023 because his BLISC degree was obtained via off-campus distance mode from Vinayaka Missions University, which was deemed invalid
Source reference: p. 14The petitioner challenged this rejection and the appointment of Respondent No. 7, alleging record manipulation and seniority
Source reference: p. 7Issues
1. Whether the speaking order dated 28.08.2023, rejecting the petitioner’s claim, is illegal or arbitrary?
Source reference: p. 132. Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Librarian was a result of record manipulation, and if he should be considered for the post of Library Assistant?
Source reference: p. 133. Whether the provincialization of Respondent No. 7 as Library Assistant is illegal for lack of requisite qualification or seniority?
Source reference: p. 13Law Applied
The court applied the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Non-Teaching Staff of Venture Educational Institutions) Act, 2018, specifically Section 4, which mandates minimum qualifications and six years of continuous service
Source reference: p. 22It relied on UGC Regulations regarding the invalidity of degrees obtained from off-campus study centers of State/Deemed Universities outside their territorial jurisdiction, as affirmed in Purnendu Sekhar Debnath v. State of Assam
Source reference: p. 16-17The court applied the principle from Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar regarding the employer's latitude in determining "suitability"
Source reference: p. 24The court applied the principle from State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei regarding the court's discretion to decline inquiries into complicated disputed questions of fact under Article 226
Source reference: p. 20Reasoning
The court found that the petitioner’s BLISC degree was non-est in law because it was obtained through an off-campus center without requisite UGC/Distance Education Bureau approval
Source reference: p. 17Regarding the petitioner's claim that he never resigned as Library Assistant and that records showing him as Assistant Librarian were manipulated, the court noted that the petitioner himself had signed information sheets claiming the post of Assistant Librarian to seek higher provincialization benefits
Source reference: p. 21The court declined to conduct a roving inquiry into the "manipulation" of college records, characterising it as a disputed fact requiring evidence beyond the writ jurisdiction's scope
Source reference: p. 20Regarding Respondent No. 7, the court accepted the State's position that Junior Assistant and Library Assistant posts are of the same rank/category and that Respondent No. 7 held the requisite seniority from 2006
Source reference: p. 21-23Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the speaking order was valid and the petitioner lacked the necessary valid qualifications for provincialization
The court further allowed I.A.(Civil) No. 85/2024, vacating the interim stay on the provincialization of Respondent No. 7; the employer (State) acted within its legal latitude in selecting the senior-most eligible candidate for the available post
Source reference: p. 24-25Original Court PDF
Babul Hossain,vsRezzaqul Hussain And 6 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in