State cannot selectively deny absorption to qualified employees when similarly situated persons have been granted the same benefit.

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time contract teacher in 2007 and later appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in 2010 under the Department of Higher Education.

Despite being designated as PGTs, the petitioner and others performed the duties of Assistant Professors in Degree Colleges.

Following previous litigation in WP(C) No. 1391/2019, the High Court directed the State to frame a scheme to absorb qualified PGTs as Assistant Professors based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work".

Consequently, the State notified a scheme on 21.09.2022 for the absorption of PGTs with 12 years of service and requisite UGC qualifications (NET/SLET/Ph.D.).

The petitioner, possessing these qualifications, obtained a favorable order in WP(C) No. 257/2021 directing her absorption subject to vacancy.

However, the respondents rejected her absorption via memorandum dated 18.01.2025, citing a lack of vacancy in the Philosophy subject, and subsequently issued a memorandum dated 13.02.2025 withdrawing the 2022 absorption scheme.

The court relied on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" established in previous rounds of litigation regarding the same class of teachers.

It strictly applied the principle of judicial discipline and the binding nature of coordinate bench decisions as articulated in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer alias Kalika Singh and Others, which mandates that an earlier decision must be followed or referred to a larger bench even if a later bench considers it incorrect.

Furthermore, the court applied the constitutional principle of non-discrimination, holding that the State cannot selectively allow some PGTs to be absorbed while opposing others similarly situated.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s case was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Dr. Sumana Majumdar (WA No. 13/2026).

In that case, the court had already set aside the memorandum dated 13.02.2025 which purported to cancel the 2022 absorption scheme.

The Court reasoned that since the State had accepted and implemented the judgment in WP(C) No. 1391/2019 for several other teachers, it was legally barred from selectively denying the same benefit to the petitioner by raising new pleas or citing subject-specific vacancies.

The Court emphasized that once a scheme is framed and implemented for a group, the State cannot arbitrarily exclude an eligible individual who has already secured a court direction for absorption.

The Court held that the petitioner's claim was legitimate and consistent with the treatment of similarly situated candidates.

The respondents were directed to absorb the petitioner into the post of Assistant Professor within a period of three months from the date of judgment.