High Court Directs Gauhati University To Consider Regularizing Ad Hoc Part-Time Lecturer Appointed 17 Yrs Ago
A single judge bench of Gauhati High Court recently allowed a writ petition praying for regularisation of service of an ad hoc Lecturer in the Gauhati University Law College, appointed irregularly 17 years ago following sudden vacancy of a part-time lecturer who resigned on account of health conditions.Justice Nelson Sailo observed,"The petitioner having rendered about 17 years of service...
A single judge bench of Gauhati High Court recently allowed a writ petition praying for regularisation of service of an ad hoc Lecturer in the Gauhati University Law College, appointed irregularly 17 years ago following sudden vacancy of a part-time lecturer who resigned on account of health conditions.
Justice Nelson Sailo observed,
"The petitioner having rendered about 17 years of service in the University Law College, it would be unfair to let her continue as a temporary employee till she attains the age of superannuation...The appointment of the petitioner, under the facts and circumstances, can also be termed as irregular appointment but not an illegal appointment."
Court said that Petitioner's case deserves to be considered in terms of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, whereby Supreme Court held that the employees who have continued to work for 10 (ten) years or more without intervention of the order of the Court or Tribunal should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. The consideration was directed to be made for those who were irregularly appointed and not illegally appointed.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner, who is a Master Degree holder in Law (LL.M) with 56% marks, was appointed as ad-hoc part-time Lecturer in the Gauhati University Law College, Gauhati University, with effect from 17.11.2005. Accordingly, she has joined the said post and has been working as such since her appointment. She has obtained Doctoral Degree in the field of law from Gauhati University on 1.11.2012 for which she had registered herself on 20.01.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that she is exempted from possessing NET/SLET/SET to be appointed and regularised as Assistant Professor. Though they have approached the respondent university for regularisation of their service but they did not pay any notice to it. Hence, the petitioners through the writ petition prayed for necessary direction to the respondent University to regularise their service as full time Lecturers/Assistant Professors of said Gauhati University.
Issue
Mr. A.K. Sarma, counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner was preceded by a selection made by the Departmental Advisory Committee (DAC) and that the permission of the University through the Registrar was duly sought. The vacancy against which the petitioner was sought to be accommodated was due to the resignation of one of the teacher owing to illness and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was against a subsisting vacancy. Also, the petitioner having worked for long 17 years by now, deserves to be considered for regularization of her service. The counsel relied upon the Apex Court decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Mr. P. J. Phukan, standing counsel for Gauhati University contended that in case of the appointment of the petitioner, no such recommendation was made by the constituted Selection Committee under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 and merely because there was a recommendation made by the Inspection Team of the Bar Council of India, such recommendation cannot prevail over the statutory provisions provided by the University Act. He relied upon the Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609; Delhi Transport Corporation v. Balwan Singh and others, (2019) 18 SCC 126; Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 8 SCC 389 and Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147.
Court’s Decision
Justice Nelson Sailo observed that the petitioner having rendered about 17 years of service in the University Law College, it would be unfair to let her continue as a temporary employee till she attains the age of superannuation. The court further stated that the inspection report of the team of officers of the Bar Council of India had also made recommendations for regularization of the part-time ad-hoc lecturers who were otherwise working on full time basis after making their inspection on 23.05.2008. Although the same may not be binding upon the University, but the same goes to show that the services of the part-time ad-hoc teachers have been utilized to the fullest extent and, in-fact, they were performing duties by taking more number of classes.
The court held that:
“The petitioner has made out a case for considering her case for regularization. The Respondent University i.e. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are therefore directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as Assistant Professor of the University within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As for the authorities relied upon by the learned Standing Council for the Gauhati University, there is no argument to the fact that statutory provisions will prevail over executive or administrative instructions and, therefore, the same is not being referred to.”
In conclusion the court allowed the writ petition with the above directions.
Case title: Dr. Rupa Barman Borgohain and Anr. v. The Gauhati University and 4 Ors.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 3