AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] By means of filing this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners who were initially appointed as Post Graduate Teachers in English [PGT, for short] under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura through a proper selection process, have claimed absorption under the District Institute of Education and Training [DIET, for short], the respondent No.4 herein.
[2] Heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.
[3] A brief outline of the relevant facts may be stated here-under:
The petitioners were first appointed as PGT under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura. While they were serving as PGT, they noticed an advertisement dated 15th May, 2003 [contained in Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition] to fill up the posts of Lecturer on deputation under the DIET. Being found themselves eligible, the petitioners applied for the said post of Lecturer and they were selected through a proper selection process. Accordingly, their services were placed at the disposal of the Principal, District Institute of Education & Training(DIET), Agartala, to teach 6 months abridged course for teachers' trainees for a period of one year from the date of joining at DIET, Abhoynagar, Agartala or till recruitment of regular teachers for DIET, Abhoynagar, Agartala, whichever is earlier with the following terms and conditions:
"(i) While serving in the DIET, Abhoynagar, Agartala the teacher concerned will not be allowed any extra remuneration or deputation allowances during the period of deputation.
(ii) The concerned teacher also will not be allowed to claim higher scale on the plea that they are serving in the DIET, Abhoynagar, Agartala."
[4] The names of the petitioners had appeared at Sl. Nos. 4, 6 and 8 in the select list attached to the memo of appointment order dated 17.07.2003 issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura. Though, the petitioners were initially appointed for a period of one year, but, the DIET authorities had been utilizing their services till today without any grievance. Even the DIET authority by a communication dated 17.04.2012[Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition] requested the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura to consider the absorption of the petitioners as they have been serving the DIET and SCERT since long with satisfactory performance having requisite qualifications as per Recruitment Rules. The copy of the communication dated 17.04.2012 is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:
"No. F.36(20-2)/SCERT/2011/83-84
Government of Tripura,
State Council of Educational Research and Training \
Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura
Dated, Agartala, the 17th April, 2012
To,
The Director of School Education,
Gazette Section,
Government of Tripura,
Agartala,
West Tripura.
Subject: Forwarding the prayers submitted by the deputed teachers of DIETs and SCERT.
Sir,
I am forwarding herewith the prayers of deputed teachers who are serving in DIETs and SCERT regarding their absorption in their institutions as Lecturers.
In this connection the following facts may be mentioned:
1) All the applicants are serving in DIETs and SCERT since long with satisfactory performance (enclosed the list of existing incumbents).
2) They have the requisite qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules (Copy enclosed).
3) It is also assessed and found that such absorption will bear minimum financial load as they have already crossed the initial stage of the pay scale.
4) MHRD, GOI has issued a revised guidelines vide D.O. No. 44-2/2019-EE.9 dated 14th March, 2012 wherein they have stated that for creation/filling up of the posts after up-gradation of DIETs and SCERT (SCERT upgraded in 1996 and DIETs upgraded in 1998), the expenditure in this regard will be borne by the GOI and State Government at the ratio of 90:10 (Guidelines enclosed).
5) Moreover, recently the State Government in School Education Department has considered the regularisation of existing contract Lecturers of DIETs.
In view of all the above mentioned, it is requested kindly consider the cases of the existing incumbents so that DIETs and SCERT will be benefited and it will be in consonance of the instructions of MHRD, GOI as mentioned above.
Yours faithfully,
(D. Datta)
Director, SCERT."
[5] Interesting to note that during the services of the petitioners as deputationists under DIET, 17(seventeen) posts of Lecturers with monthly contract of Rs.5,000/- only were created by the State respondents by issuing a Memo. dated 29.10.2004 for teaching these students[Annexure- P/5 to the writ petition].
[6] The State respondents again issued a Memo. dated 17.07.2004 on the subject-"Proposal to fill up 37 posts of Lecturer, DIET-approval thereof". The said proposal was placed before the Council of Ministers, Tripura. From the said Memo, it would be revealed that the Government of Tripura introduced 6(six) months' abridged training course for in-service teachers in the IASE and DIETs simultaneously as double shifts, for the in- service teachers and the freshers and for that purpose, 20(twenty) posts of Lecturers for DIETs on contract pay @Rs.5,000/- per month were created.
[7] Again from the Memo. dated 17.06.2004, which was issued by the State respondents in continuation of the Memo. dated 28.05.2004, the Tripura Public Service Commission recommended the names of 8(eight) contractual Lecturers and on the basis of that recommendation, the State respondents were pleased to appoint 8(eight) persons to the post of Lecturer under DIET in the scale of pay of Rs.7,450-13,000/- plus admissible allowances purely on temporary basis stipulating the probation period for two years from the date of their joining to their respective posts[Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition].
[8] Having noticed the absorption of contractual Lecturers under the DIET, the petitioners being serving the DIET for a longer period than those of the contractual Lecturers, had submitted representation to their authority for absorbing them as Lecturer, DIET with the pay scale pertaining to the post of Lecturer. The said representation was forwarded by the Director, SECRT to the Director of School Education by letter dated 17.04.2012.
The said letter dated 17.04.2012 including the list of incumbents in respect of DIET, Agartala may be reproduced here-under for convenience in extenso:
"No.F.36(20-2)/SCERT/2011/83-84
Government of Tripura
State Council of Educational Research and Training
Abhoynagar, Agartala,
West Tripura
Dated, Agartala, the 17/April, 2012
To,
The Director of School Education,
Gazette Section
Government of Tripura
Agartala,
West Tripura.
Subject:- Forwarding the prayers submitted by the deputed teachers of DIETs and SCERT.
Sir,
I am forwarding herewith the prayers of deputed teachers who are serving in D.I.E.Ts and SCERT regarding their absorption in their institutions as Lecturers.
In this connection the following facts may be mentioned:
1) All the applicants are serving in D.I.E.T.s and SCERT since long with satisfactory performance(enclosed the list of existing incumbents).
2) They have the requisite qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules(Copy enclosed).
3) It is also assessed and found that such absorption will bear minimum financial load as they have already crossed the initial stage of the pay scale.
4) MHRD, GOI has issued a revised guidelines vide D.O. No.44-2/2012-EE.9 dated 14th March, 2012 wherein they have stated that for creation/filling up of the Posts after up gradation of DIETs and SCERT(SCERT upgraded in 1996 and DIETs upgraded in 1998), the expenditure in this regard will be borne by the GOI and State Government at the ratio of 90:10(Guidelines enclosed).
5) Moreover, recently the State Government in School Education Department has considered the regularization of existing contract Lecturers of DIETs.
In view of all the above mentioned, it is requested kindly consider the cases of the existing incumbents so that DIETs and SCERT will be benefited and it will be in consonance of the instructions of the MHRD, GOI as mentioned above.
Yours faithfully,
(D. Datta)
Director, SCERT
Enclo:-
1) As stated above.
bio-datas of the deputed teachers of DIET and SCERT.
DIET Agartala,
Smt, Panchali Debbarma, Music Teacher-20 years in DIET.
Shri Nitai Acharjee, Translator-25 years in DIET.
Smt. Susmita Bhattacharjee, PGT-9 years in DIET.
Shri Prasenjit Roy, A/T-9 years in DIET.
Smt. Nandini Bhattacharjee, PGT-9 years in DIET.
DIET Kakraban
Shanta Chakraborty, A/T-7 years in DIET.
Shri Sukanta Saha, A/T-7 years in DIET.
Md. Mafisul Islam, PGT-6 years in DIET.
Smt. Gita Debroy, PGT-3 years in DIET.
Smt. Uttara Roy, A/T-5 years in DIET.
Shri Arun Kumar Roy, A/T-3 years in DIET.
Shri Shankar Das, PGT-3 years in DIET.
Shri Bitan Jamatia, PGT-3 years in DIET.
SCERT
Smt. Chhanda Debnath, A/T-12 years in SCERT.
Shri Nilkanta Singha, Headmaster (SB)-16 years in SCERT."
The name of the petitioners appeared at Sl. No.5, 4 and 3 respectively.
[9] Since they were not informed about their consideration for absorption/regularization in the posts of Lecturers under DIET, the petitioners, namely, Smt. Nandini Bhattacharjee, Sri Prasenjit Roy and Smt. Susmita Bhattacharjee @ Susmita Bhattacharya have filed the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 06 of 2014, WP(C) No. 722 of 2018 & WP(C) No. 214 of 2018 before this Court respectively. These writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the manner as follows:
"17. Having appreciated the records as produced by the petitioner and the respondents, as well as the averments and top of all, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the regular process of the direct recruitment was definitely not followed while appointing the private respondents but the government having due regard to the exigency in the DIETs has adopted a policy that if the Public Service Commission having considered the educational qualifications, performance report, etc. found that the private respondents can be appointed as Lecturer, DIET, then they would be so appointed. There cannot be any amount of dispute that during that process there was no public employment notice for participation of those who were not borne in the catalogue of the Lecturers on contract service.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
What the core question is that the petitioner has been serving since 2003 as a Lecturer, DIET on deputation and long back she has crossed the maximum period of deputation. The petitioner had not been repatriated and the respondents are continuously realizing the service from the petitioner. As such, this Court finds a basis to observe that if the respondents were satisfied with the performance of the petitioner and then, the satisfaction itself is the basis for the petitioner's claim for absorption in the post.
Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 6 has clearly submitted that no such exercise has been taken up by the government as the petitioner did not represent for such absorption at any point of time.
Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that it would have been equitus for the government to take an exercise to weigh the option whether the persons serving for a long period on deputation in the DIETs could be absorbed or not. But that option has not been weighed. It is no denying fact that absorption is curved out to be exception in the process of recruitment, but to tape the efficiency gathered through experience it is a known method, exercised rarely."
[10] In view of the aforesaid order passed in those writ petitions, the petitioners submitted representations to consider their absorption. But, though the said exercise was not completed within 4(four) months as stipulated by this Court, ultimately, the respondents had considered their representations rejecting the same on the ground that Educational Qualification i.e. the eligibility criteria to hold the post of Lecturer had been changed vide memorandum dated 28th November, 2014 by the National Council for Teachers Education [NCTE, for short].
[11] It was stated that minimum educational qualifications for teacher in Educators in D.El.Ed should have Masters Degree in Social Science/Humanities/Science/Maths/Language with 50% marks and M. Ed with 50% marks or M.A. [Education] with 50% marks. On scrutiny of document of Smt. Nandini Bhattacharjee, PGT, it has been revealed that "Smt. Bhattacharjee, PGT has acquired Master Degree in English and Education having B.Ed degree. Her date of birth is 12.01.1968 (present age is above 50 years)."
[12] In this regard, Smt. Nandini Bhattacharjee, the petitioner herein, in WP(C) No. 706 of 2019 has averred in her writ petition that she obtained M.A. Education with more than 50% marks and she obtained the degree of M.Ed i.e. she has fulfilled the criteria having obtained more than 50% marks in M.A. [Education] and this fact has been included in her Service Book. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondents-State have failed to consider the exact spirit of the judgment and order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.06 of 2014 and they have misconstrued the order and directions laying down parameters in the judgment.
[13] Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has defended the said reasoning of the State-respondents in defying the absorption of the petitioners in the regular posts of Lecturers, DIET.
[14] On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Datta Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Raju Datta and Mr. K. Panday learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the absorption is not the regular process of recruitment to the post of Lecturers, DIET. It is an exception which is culled out by the Tripura Public Service Commission [TPSC, for short] and in that case, the names of the petitioners ought to have been considered first, because they were appointed earlier than those of the private respondents who were appointed on contract basis in the year 2004. Non-application of this exception in the case of the petitioners, attracts Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
[15] Since 8(eight) candidates were recommended by the TPSC for their appointment in the regular posts of Lecturers, under the DIET, non- consideration of the appointment/absorption of the petitioners, offends Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, appointment of the contractual Lecturers are completely de hors the Recruitment Rules as prescribed under the DIET, Recruitment Rules, 2004, for appointment to the regular posts of Lecturers.
[16] Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned senior counsel has submitted that when there is prescribed procedure for filling up the regular posts of Lecturers, DIET, it was the mandate of the Constitution to follow the established public employment procedure to make any appointment against regular posts. Mr. Majumder, has further submitted that the appointment of the contractual Lecturers were made in total disregard of Recruitment Rules and thus, their absorption/regularization in the regular posts of Lecturers are nothing but a backdoor entry. However, the learned Single Judge while passing the judgments has held that out of the interest of DIET and in exigency, the private respondents were appointed.
[17] Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and Others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 381 and another decision of this Court in Biplabendu Roy v. State of Tripura and Others, reported in (2017) 1 TLR 496. In paragraph 17 of Rameshwar Prasad (supra), the Apex Court has observed thus:
"17. In our view, it is true that whether the deputationists should be absorbed in service or not is a policy matter, but at the same time, once the policy is accepted and rules are framed for such absorption, before rejecting the application, there must be justifiable reasons. Respondent No. 1 cannot act arbitrarily by picking and choosing the deputationists for absorption. The power of absorption, no doubt, is discretionary but is coupled with me duty not to act arbitrarily, or at whim or caprice of any individual. In the present case, as stated earlier, the General Manager (N.E.Z.) specifically pointed out as early as in the year 1988 that appellant's service record was excellent; he has useful in service and appropriate order of his absorption may be passed. His application for absorption was within three years as provided in Rule 5. There is nothing on record to indicate that for any reason whatsoever, he was not required or fit to be absorbed or the power under Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Absorption of Government Servants in Public Undertakings Rules, 1984 was not required to be exercised in his favour. Interim order dated 17.7.1991 passed by the High Court would not be applicable in case of appellant because his case was considered for absorption in the year 1988. Further on completion of five years on 19.11.1990 he could not have ordinarily been continued on deputation in the service of Nigam. It is apparent that he was absorbed from 19.11.90 because from that date his deputation allowance was also discontinued. If he was to be continued on deputation, there was no reason for non-payment of deputation allowance. So, on the basis of statutory rules as well as the policy, appellant stand absorbed in the service of Nigam."
[18] At the time of hearing, Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned senior counsel has placed the Mark Card of M.A. Education examination relating to Nandini Bhattacahrjee after being brought it to the notice of the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. The mark sheet is reproduced here-in-below, in extenso:
Sr. No.: 148188
iase university
Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University
Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr-331401, Rajasthan, India
Mark Card
Examination: M.A. EDUCATION Semester/Year: Ist (Jan'07-Dec'07)
Candidate's Name: NANDINI BHATTACHARJEE
Father's/Husband's Name: ASHIT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE
Enrolment No.: IASE/2/07/J/07885 Roll No: 7222000
PAPER CODE: SUBJECT(S) OFFERED
MAXIMUM MARKS
MARKS OBTAINED
REMARK S
Theory
Practical
TOTAL
Theory
Practical
TOTAL
Internal
External
Internal
External
Internal
Externa
l
Internal
External
MAED-Y110: PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
MAED-Y 120: PHYCHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION
MAED-Y130:TEACHER EDUCATION
MAED-Y 140-OP1: ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION
30
30
30
30
70
70
70
70
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
100
100
100
100
25
24
25
25
29
37
28
29
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
54
61
53
54
SC
SC
SC
SC
SEMESTER/YEAR
FIRST
SECOND
THIRD
FOURTH
FIFTH
SIXTY
SEVENTH
EIGHTH
GRAND
TOTAL
RESULT
DIVISION
MAXIMUM MARKS
400
PASS
TOTAL MARKS
OBTAINED
222
iase 231985 university
Sr. No.
Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr-331401, Rajasthan, India
Mark Card
Examination: M.A. EDUCATION Semester/Year: 2nd (Jan'08-Dec'08)
Candidate's Name: NANDINI BHATTACHARJEE
Father's/Husband's Name: ASHIT KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE
Enrolment No.: IASE/2/07/J/07885 Roll No: 8243842
PAPER CODE: SUBJECT(S) OFFERED
MAXIMUM MARKS
MARKS OBTAINED
REMARK S
Theory
Practical
TOTAL
Theory
Practical
TOTAL
Internal
External
Internal
External
Internal
Externa
l
Internal
External
MAED-Y110: PHILOSOPHICAL AND
SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
MAED-Y 120: PHYCHOLOGICAL
FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION
MAED-Y130:TEACHER EDUCATION
MAED-Y 140-OP1: ENVIRONMENT
EDUCATION
MADE-Y-250: DISSERTATION
30
30
30
30
--
70
70
70
70
--
--
--
--
--
50
--
--
--
--
50
100
100
100
100
100
27
28
28
27
--
32
49
44
41
--
--
--
--
--
37
--
--
--
--
42
59
77
72
68
79
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SEMESTER/YEAR
FIRST
SECOND
THIRD
FOURTH
FIFTH
SIXTY
SEVENTH
EIGHTH
GRAND
TOTAL
RESULT
DIVISION
MAXIMUM MARKS
400
500
900
PASS
FIRST
TOTAL MARKS
OBTAINED
222
355
577
In other writ petitions, the mark sheets are annexed. So, according to Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel, without examining the relevant records i.e. the mark sheets, the respondents most arbitrarily stated that the petitioner, Nandini Bhattacharjee has not obtained M.Ed. or M.A. (Education) degree with more than 50% marks.
[19] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the relevant documents annexed to the writ petitions filed by the petitioners as well as annexures enclosed with the counter affidavit filed by the State- respondents.
[20] There cannot be any debate that a deputationist cannot claim as a matter of right for absorption in the post which he serves on deputation in absence of any statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law, for the reason that such deputationist can always or at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantial position therein.
[21] Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State- respondents has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India and Another, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 362 and Ratilal B. Soni and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 243, wherein the Apex Court held that the deputationist has no vested right to be absorbed.
[22] In the case in hand, all the three petitioners were appointed in the year 2004 in pursuance of a public employment notice. Though, their initial appointments were for three years, but, all the petitioners have been serving under the DIET for more than 17 years. At this juncture, Mr. Datta Majumder, learned senior counsel has brought to my notice that after filing of the present writ petition by Smt. Nandini Bhattacharjee, the Court had passed a stay order dated 20.09.2020 in interim, directing the DIET authority and the State-respondents not to repatriate, but on a returnable date, the interim order was not extended out of inadvertence being not brought to the notice of the Court. On the returnable date, the Court had simply passed an order stating "list the matter on 18.12.2019" [order dated 03.12.2019 in WP(C) No. 706 of 2019] without reflection of the stay order. Taking this advantage, the petitioner in WP(C) No.706 of 2019[Smt. Nandini Bhattacharjee] was repatriated to her present organization and transferred to a distant place. But, the other two petitioners Sri Prasenjit Roy and Smt. Susmita Bhattacharjee @ Susmita Bhattacharya are still working under DIET as Lecturers on deputation.
[23] Coming to the subject in dispute, from the correspondence dated 17th April, 2012 made by the Director SCERT, it has came to light that the DIET and SCERT are still in need of the services of the petitioners because the vacant regular posts still exist under the DIET and a proposal was also being sent to absorb the petitioners since the services of the other contractual Lecturers were regularized against the regular vacant posts.
[24] As I said earlier, that the State-respondents adopted a pick and choose policy in absorbing the eight(8) contractual lecturers as stated above. It is revealed that the contractual services of eight(8) lecturers were made on the basis of their repeated representations to the respondents. The petitioners also made similar representations, but, their representation were not considered. It has also been manifested that there is clear Recruitment Rule for making regular appointment to the posts of Lecturer under DIET by the rules called "Lecturer, DIETs Recruitment Rules, (2004)" which was published by notification dated 06.12.2004 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition]. From the schedule appended to the notification, it appears that the total number of Lecturers available under the DIET is 30 or may be more, if posts were created subsequently. The method of recruitment is 100% by direct recruitment and in Rule-7, the education and other essential qualifications have been prescribed.
[25] In my opinion, when there is specific Recruitment Rules prescribed to fill up certain posts, under the Constitutional scheme, any public authority including the Council of Ministers are to be governed by the Recruitment Rules which is framed under Article-309 of the Constitution of India. When a rule has been framed under Article-309 of the Constitution of India, the Council of Ministers or any other authority cannot exercise its power under Article-162 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"34. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies a three- Judge Bench made a survey of the authorities and held that when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and cannot be regularised by the State. The State could not invoke its power under Article 162 of the Constitution to regularize such appointments. This Court also held that regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the rules framed thereunder. Regularisation furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularization."
Again, at Para-43 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry o his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following the due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates."
[26] In my considered view, when the Director SCERT had recommended the names of the petitioners for their absorption under DIET, non-forwarding of the same for approval of the Council of Ministers while the names of contractual candidates were forwarded, definitely violates the doctrine of equality and thus offends Article-14 of the Constitution of India. In furtherance thereof, in the recommendation letter, the Director, SCERT clearly has stated that the petitioners were eligible in all respects to be absorbed in the regular posts of Lecturers under DIET. In the instant case, it is established from the records that eight candidates who were appointed on contract basis initially, they were absorbed against the regular vacant posts of Lecturers under the DIET on the basis of their repeated representations without following the established procedure of public employment. I was inclined to quash the appointments of these eight Lecturers who were appointed in total violation of the established rule of public employment. But, the petitioners have not made such prayer before this Court.
However, it is apparent from the face of the records that the petitioners were utterly discriminated due to arbitrary decision taken by the authorities concerned. The reason assigned while rejecting the representations of the petitioners particularly, Smt. Nandini Bhattacharjee, that she had no required qualification, is absolutely unfounded and factually incorrect. The authority concerned even did not think it necessary to examine her records, though, according to the learned senior counsel, her qualification has also been recorded in her service book. As such, in my considered view, the petitioners also are entitled to get similar treatment as those of eight Lecturers who were absorbed under the DIET. The State-respondents are directed to send the names of the petitioners to the Council of Ministers and this Court hopes and trust that the Council of Ministers shall consider the case of the petitioners herein in the line of those eight contractual Lecturers exploring all possibilities, keeping in mind the DIET needs the service of all the petitioners, and vacant posts still exist under DIET. Furthermore, the petitioners have all the essential qualifications for being absorbed/appointed as Lecturer under respondent No.7.
It has been made clear that till such consideration by the Council of ministers and a fresh decision is taken by the competent authority, the services of the petitioners namely, Sri Prasenjit Roy and Smt. Susmita Bhattacahrjee @ Susmita Bhattacharya, who have been serving under DIET till today, shall not be disturbed by way of repatriation to their parent department. It is further made clear that repatriation of Smti. Nandini Bhattacharjee, the petitioner in WP(C) No.706 of 2019 shall not come in the way of her absorption under DIET as Lecturer.
[27] With the above observations and directions, the present petitions stands disposed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.