GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUERS ORDER ON ABINASH DAS V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, May 27 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 28:

1. Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6; Ms. K. Barpuzari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.C. Chamuah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioner as Lecturer in any Polytechnic in the State of Assam under Regulation 3(f), APSC Regulations, 1951, and also to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to render his service at Baksa Polytechnic College, Baksa against the vacant sanctioned post of Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) at Nowgong Polytechnic, Nagaon or against any post of Lecturer vacant in any Government Polytechnics in Assam.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:

"The petitioner had completed his B. Tech degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, (ICFAI) in regular mode in the year 2015 and completed his M. Tech degree from Gauhati University in the year 2020. Pursuant to an advertisement, dated 07.07.2018, the petitioner had applied for being engaged as Guest Faculty in various Government Polytechnics of Assam. He had participated in the selection process, and vide order dated 20.07.2019, he was engaged as Guest/Part-time Lecturer in Baksa Polytechnic, Baksa in the department of Mechanical Engineering for a period of six months.

The petitioner continued to discharge his duties as Guest/Part-time Lecturer in Baksa Polytechnic by way of various extensions with artificial breaks, in between such terms, and he was expecting regularization of his service. Thereafter, vide Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024, approval was granted for re-engagement for 451 part-time faculties against the existing vacant posts in the Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges in the State, under Regulation 3(f). The petitioner is covered within the said 451 part-time faculty engaged against existing vacant posts in the Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges. Thereafter, the Principals of all State Government Polytechnics, pursuant to letter dated 18.01.2025, issued by the respondent No. 2, released all the part-time Lecturers and the petitioner was also disengaged.

Thereafter, vide notification dated 22.01.2025, 100 numbers of Parttime/Guest Faculties were absorbed under Regulation 3(f) and were posted at various new places of posting. But, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the aforementioned list, even one Sri Abhinandan Boruah in Sl. No. 4 and Sri Tushar Ranjan Bora in Sl. No. 13 were also absorbed under Regulation 3(f) who were lower in merit to him. His further contention is that before publication of the said notification, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 that his candidature may not be considered for absorption under Regulation 3(f) as the petitioner had obtained his B. Tech degree from ICFAI University which is not approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

Further pleaded case of the petitioner is that ICFAI University is approved by the UGC and the same does not fall within the ambit of a 'technical institution' as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act vis-a-vis the provision of Section 10(1)(k), which empowers the AICTE to grant approval for starting new 'technical institutions' and for introduction of new courses or programmes, and the said aspect has been highlighted by the UGC in its letter dated 29.11.2012, wherein it has been categorically stated by the University Grant Commission (UGC) that ICFAI University, Tripura is not required to take approval of AICTE to run B. Tech courses, and despite having requisite qualification, the petitioner was left out by the respondent authorities.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x8Zhf6WqIFmYpsPs%2F0b7yEeO5FIjX98KFzOGA5Rd9Ic9&caseno=WP(C)/1188/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010037372025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.