Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010079522024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2165/2024 DR. MUKUL CHANDRA BORA DIRECTOR, DUIET, DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY VERSUS THE DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY, RAJABHATTA, DIBRUGARH, PIN- 786004 2:VICE CHANCELLOR DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY RAJABHATTA DIBRUGARH PIN- 786004 3:THE REGISTRAR DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY DIBRUGAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MS S MOCHAHARI,MR. S DUTTA,MR S DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DIB. UNIVERSITY, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Page No.# 2/5 29.05.2025 Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents. [2.] Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is serving as Director of Dibrugarh University of Technology since 01.01.2012 and has completed more than 11 years of service as such. However, according to the petitioner he has been receiving pre-revised pay band-3 and revised 13A scale of All India Council for Technichal Education (AICTE) although he is entitled to scale-4 of AICTE which is presently scale of 14 with allowances of Rs. 3000 per month. The petitioner contends that ACT regulations are statutory and therefore, the salary and allowances and including the age of retirement ought to have been fixed as per the designation given to the petitioner. [3.] The petitioner further contends that the ACT Notification dated 22.01.2010 stipulates that all the Principal/Director in service shall appropriately be placed in the pay band and also given the extension of service for the period up to 65 years. However, as the petitioner has been deprived of the prescribed salary and allowances as per the ACT norms, he submitted his representation Page No.# 3/5 before the Vice Chancellor of the University on 08.02.2022, 27.10.2022 & 08.01.2024 (Annexure-3, 4 & 5 respectively). Since the grievance of the petitioner has not been addressed, he has filed the present writ petition. [4.] Mr. S Dutta as well as Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the rival parties have made their respective submissions in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Madras High Court’s Judgment dated 18.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 17918/2021 and 17929/2021 (Dr. S K Kothandaraman vs. The Pro-Chancellor Puducheerry Technoligical University & Ors.) 2022 Supreme (OnLine) (MAD) 6360 to contend that the High Court had directed the benefit of the AICTE norms to be given to the party concerned. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the present petitioner is also similar in all respects and similar benefits should be given to him. Further reliance has been made to the case of State of T.N & Anr. Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors., reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104. [5.] Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there are certain discrepancies in the declaration of date of birth of the petitioner and which has been brought on record as permitted by this Court vide an affidavit filed on 26.05.2025. He submits that instead of declaring his year of birth as 1965, the petitioner has declared the same as Page No.# 4/5 1966. Mr. R Mazumdar further submits that as per the AICTE norms, the petitioner is solely in the Administrative post and not in the teaching cadre and therefore, he is not entitled to remain in service upto the age of 65 years. He also submits that in the event, matter is remanded for consideration of the representation, the liberty may be granted to the respondent authority to place the matter before the Executive Council (EC) of the University. [6.] Considering the rival submissions and instead of entering into the controversy as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of AICTE norms, this Court having regard to the 3 (three) representations already filed by the petitioner is of the considered view that the respondent authorities should take a decision in the matter by giving due consideration to all the claims made by the petitioner basing on the AICTE norms and the decision of the Madras High Court in this regard. [7.] Accordingly, the writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondents more particularly the respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of their representations already filed and to take a decision in the matter as per the procedure in vogue within a period of 6 (weeks) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Page No.# 5/5 [8.] It is needless to state herein that in the event the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision to be taken, he will be at liberty to approach this Court again. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is due to retire on superannuation on retaining the age of 60 years on 21.05.2025 but if the AICTE norms is to apply to him, than he would be retiring at the age of 65. Under the circumstance, it is provided herein that in the event, the respondent authorities decide the representation of the petitioner in his favour and thereby allowing him to continue till the age of 65 years, the gap period which will occur after 31.05.2025 till such decision is taken to allow him to continue in service will naturally have to be treated as continuity in service for all purpose. [9.] With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant