AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos. 2 and 4 as well as Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 & 3. None appears for the respondent No.5 who
happens to be the consequential beneficiary of the order impugned in this writ petition.
The petitioner No.1, who was a lecturer in the Department of History in the Kokrajhar College was appointed in the Gauhati University as a Joint
Registrar at its Kokrajhar campus in the year 1998. Upon enactment of the Bodoland University Act, 2009, the Gauahti University campus at
Kokrajhar was converted to a full fledged university and the petitioner No.1 was transferred and posted as the Registrar of the said university in the
year 2010. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 was initially appointed as a lecturer in the Department of MIL Bodo in the Kokrajhar College and in the year
2014, he was posted as the Director of Colleges and University Development Council (in short CUDC) under the Bodoland University.
In this writ petition, the petitioners assail the communication dated 05.07.2017 of the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, whereby, the petitioner No.1
was asked to handover the charge of Registrar of the Bodoland University to the respondent No.5 and further to authorize any other suitable officer to
discharge the work of Director CUDC of the Bodoland University. Prayers have been made to direct the respondent No.3 not to issue any
advertisement for the post of Registrar and Director of the CUDC and also to allow the petitioners to continue to work till they attain the age of 62
years.
The basis of such claim of the petitioners is that there are certain resolutions of the Executive Council of the Bodoland University, wherein, it was
resolved that the age of superannuation of the Registrar and other equivalent posts be extended from 60 of 62 years. One such resolution can be
found in the proceedings of the 18th Executive Council meeting held on 16.02.2016, wherein, by referring to the Resolution No.13 dated 29.07.2015 of
the Executive Council and the Resolution No.6 dated 27.11.2015 of the University Court, a resolution was taken that the provision of the UGC and
AICTE rules be implemented and that the retirement age of the Registrar and equivalent posts be extended from 60 to 62 years. The Resolution
No.13 of the Executive Council dated 29.07.2015 provides that the age of superannuation of the Registrar and equivalent posts of the university be
made as per the UGC resolution and AICT rules prescribed from time to time. The Resolution No.6 of the University Court dated 27.11.2015 provides
that as approved by the Resolution No.13 of the Executive Council dated 29.07.2015, the age of superannuation for the officers be made 62 years.
According to Mr. M.U. Mahmud, neither the first statute nor the first ordinance and the first regulation were approved by the chancellor, and,
therefore, the provisions of the resolution of the Executive Council and the University Court would determine the age of superannuation of the
Registrar and other equivalent posts. It is stated that subsequent thereof on 17.07.2017, the first statute of the university was approved and published.
Be that as it may, the Executive Council of the Bodoland University had in the meantime made the regular statute whereof, clause 14 inter alia
provides as follows:-
“The age of superannuation for all officers, teachers under UGC scale of pay and other staff under CPC scale of pay of the Bodoland University
shall be as per UGC and State rules. In case of those deputed from Government service, relevant rules of parent department shall be applicable.
However, the age of retirement of teachers and officers under UGC scale of pay will be as per the UGC/AICTE rules and guidelines announced from
time to time.â€
By relying upon Clause 14 of the regular statute, Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the communication dated
05.07.2017 from the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam is not sustainable. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel further submits that under Section 18(g)
of the Bodoland University Act, it is within the competence of the Executive Council to make provision for, amongst others, the terms and condition of
the service of the teachers of the university and also the employees of the constituent colleges. It is submitted that in exercise of such power under
Section 18(6), the Executive Council as provided under Section 32(1) of the Bodoland University Act had made the regular statute and as such, the
same are validly made.
Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Chancellor has submitted that even though the Executive Council may be empowered
under Section 32(1) to make the regular statute but any such statute is subjected to the approval by the Chancellor of the university as required under
Section 32(5) of the Bodoland University Act.
In the instant case, the regular statute relied upon by the petitioners had not yet been forwarded to the Chancellor for his approval under Section
32(5) and therefore, for the present relevance upon Clause 14 thereof cannot be made by the petitioners unless the same is given its consideration by
the Chancellor.
Accordingly, it is the submission of Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel that the provision of Clause 14 of the regular statute as it stands
today cannot be the basis to assail the communication dated 05.07.2017.
Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Bodoland University submits that the provisions of Clause 14 of the regular statute as made by the
Executive Council is not in complete conformity with the provisions of the UGC regulation, more particularly the provisions of regulation 3(3) as
notified by the communication dated 31.12.2008.
As the sole basis of the contention of the petitioner to assail the communication dated 05.07.2017 is Clause-14 of the regular statute which has not
yet been sent to the Chancellor for his approval as required under Section 32(5) of the Bodoland University Act, this Court for the present refrains
itself from adjudicating the matter as well as from making any observation or expressing any view on the claim made by the respective parties. It is
clarified that whatsoever is recorded hereinabove, are the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and it does not convey the
view of the Court. As the process of making the regular statute has not been subjected to the complete procedure as required under Section 32, more
particularly the requirement of Section 32(5), it is provided that the Vice Chancellor of the Bodoland University shall forthwith transmit and place the
regular statute before the Chancellor and thereafter the required procedure of Section 32(5) may be undertaken. In terms of the above, writ petition
stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.