Junior Professional’s Promotion Over Senior Subject to Re-evaluation for Procedural Fairness in Provincialisation Claims

The petitioner joined the Economics Department of Nandalal Borgohain City College on 31.12.1996 as the second faculty member

Although she secured 54.63% in her M.A., a 2013 Government order allowed rounding off marks above 54.5% to 55% for eligibility

Under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, only the first faculty member’s name was forwarded for provincialisation; the petitioner’s name was excluded

Under the subsequent 2017 Act, the College authorities forwarded the names of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (who joined in 2006 and 2008 respectively) for the 2nd and 3rd posts

The petitioner’s name was only forwarded for the 4th post, which was later rejected due to insufficient student enrollment

The petitioner alleged that the College authorities (who are reportedly related to Respondent No. 7) deliberately suppressed her seniority and eligibility to favor the private respondents

1. Whether the College authorities were legally required to sponsor the petitioner’s name for provincialisation as the second teacher in Economics under the Acts of 2011 and 2017

2. Whether the lack of UGC norms (55% marks) at the time of initial appointment or the alleged failure to submit documents justified the exclusion of the petitioner’s seniority

Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, specifically Section 2(t) and (u), which distinguishes between "Teachers" (qualified) and "Tutors" (those lacking qualifications but eligible for provincialisation with a 5-year window to qualify)

Sections 6 and 7 of the same Act outline the eligibility criteria and the process for upgrading Tutors to Teachers

UGC Regulations, 2010, regarding minimum qualifications

State Government’s 2013 executive order regarding the rounding off of marks for candidates appointed between 1989 and 2003

The court observed that the petitioner was undisputedly the second faculty member, having joined in 1996, well before the private respondents

The court rejected the College's justification for excluding her based on eligibility, noting that under the 2017 Act, even if an incumbent lacks full qualifications, they must be considered for provincialisation as a "Tutor" rather than being omitted entirely

The determination of whether the petitioner met UGC norms or qualified for the rounding-off benefit was the specialized function of the District and State Level Scrutiny Committees, not the College authorities

By not forwarding the petitioner's name in the correct seniority order, the College deprived her of the opportunity to be evaluated for the 2nd post, leading to her eventual rejection under the 4th post's stricter enrollment criteria

Furthermore, the court noted prima facie evidence of family ties between the College management and Respondent No. 7, suggesting a conflict of interest in the selection process

The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal/representation to the Director of Higher Education, who must consider her as the second teacher of the institution. If found eligible, her provincialisation shall take effect retrospectively from 05.02.2021

The court further ordered an independent inquiry into the alleged nepotism and family connections involving the Principal and Respondent No. 7

The provincialisation benefits of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 remain stayed pending the result of the petitioner’s evaluation and the inquiry. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs