Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010102432025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2651/2025 SHIBAYAN KAR AND ANR S/O SUBRATA KUMAR KAR, R/O RAMAKRISHNA MISSION ROAD, HOUSE NO. 21 P.O. AND P.S. SRIBHUMI DIST SRIBHUMI, ASSAM PIN-788710 2: GAURAV BANIK S/O PREMTOSH BANIK R/O BASUDEVALAYA APARTMENT H. NO. 11/1/E OPP TO K.C. NURSING HOME TULAPATTY SILCHAR P.O. AND P S. SILCHAR SADAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 78800 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI6 2:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI - 19 4:THE PRINCIPAL KARIMGANJ POLYTECHNIC Page No.# 2/8 MAIZGRAM DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN - 788712 5:THE PRINCIPAL SILCHAR POLYTECHNIC MEHERPUR SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM PIN 78801 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH, MR. P K BORDOLOI,MS. P HANDIQUE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, Linked Case : WP(C)/2665/2025 SRI SHYAMAL KRISHNA ROY D/O SRI UTTAM KUMAR ROY R/O S.P. ROAD SRIBHUMI P.O. AND P.S. SRIBHUMI (SADAR) DISTRICT SRIBHUMI PIN-788713 2: SMTI KOHENOOR BARBHUIYA D/O TAJ UDDIN BARBHUIYA R/O HOUSE NO. 278 MEHRAB ALI LANE CHAMRAGUDAM SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM-788001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI6 2:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. Page No.# 3/8 3:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI - 19. 4:THE PRINCIPAL POLYTECHNIC KARIMGANJ MAIZGRAM 7 KARIMGANJ DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788712 ------------ Advocate for : MR. D BARUAH Advocate for : SC HIGHER EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.09 .2025 Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. By this common order, it is proposed to dispose of both these writ petitions, being WP(C) Nos.2651/2025 and 2665/2025, as the issues being raised and the reliefs claimed in both these petitions are same. 3. In these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to consider them for being appointed as Lecturers under the provision of Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951 under the Department of Higher Education (Technical), Government of Assam, as per Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024 and the letter dated 29.10.2024 and also in the light of the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.938/2025. Page No.# 4/8 4. Mr. Baruah submits that the petitioner No.1 in WP(C) No.2651/2025 was appointed by the Principal, Karimganj Polytechnic on 05.08.2019 as Part Time Lecturer (Contractual) in Civil Engineering Department and the petitioner No.2 was appointed by the Principal, Karimganj Polytechnic, on 16.02.2019 as Part Time Lecturer (Contractual) in Industrial and Production Engineering Department of the Institute and later, on 09.08.2023, he was transferred to Silchar Polytechnic in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Principals of the respective Polytechnics had issued their experience certificate to the petitioners. They have continued their services till their termination on 08.11.2024. In the meantime, the State Cabinet has taken a decision to appoint the part-time faculty under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951 and accordingly, by a notification dated 22.01.2025, 100 nos. of faculties have been appointed under the provision of Regulation 3(f), but the case of the petitioners was not considered. Subsequently, some similarly situated faculties approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No.938/2025, challenging the action of the respondents for being not appointing them under Regulation 3(f) and this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025, was pleased to dispose of the same directing the respondents to appoint them in the post of Assistant Professor, under Regulation 3(f), as per Cabinet Decision, dated 24.09.2024, and the present petitioners are also seeking similar relief since they are similarly situated with them. 5. Mr. Baruah also submits that the petitioner No.1 in WP(C) No.2665/2025 was appointed vide order dated 16.02.2019, in the post of Part Time Lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Karimganj Polytechnic and subsequently, vide order dated 05.08.2019, the petitioner No.2 was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Karimganj Polytechnic and the Principal of the Karimganj Polytechnic had issued their experience certificate to the petitioners and the petitioners were continuing their services till termination on 10.03.2025. In the meantime, the State Cabinet has taken a decision to appoint the part-time faculty under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951 and accordingly, vide notification dated 22.01.2025, 100 nos. of faculties have been Page No.# 5/8 appointed under the provision of Regulation 3(f), however, the petitioners were left out and subsequently, some of the left out candidates had filed one writ petition, being WP(C) No.938/2025 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 with a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them in the post of Part Time Lecturer, under the Regulation 3(f) as per Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024, within a period of 10 days and similar reliefs are being claimed by the present petitioners in the present petition as they are also similarly situated. 6. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and pursuant to the order dated 27.08.2025, Mr. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities, has obtained instruction regarding the vacant post and he submitted a copy showing vacancy status in Polytechnics of Assam as on 01.09.2025, which shows that no posts under Civil Engineering Department are lying vacant and as such, the prayer of the petitioners in WP(C) No.2651/2025, could not be considered due to want of vacancy in the Civil Engineering Department as both the petitioners in the said petition belongs to Civil Engineering branch and Industrial and Production Engineering branch and as such, their prayer cannot be favourably considered by this Court. 7. However, referring to the status of the said vacancy position as on 01.09.2025, Mr. Baruah submits that the petitioners in the WP(C) No.2665/2025, belongs to the branch of Electrical Engineering and their case can be considered favourably, as 5(five) posts in Electrical Engineering Department are lying vacant and therefore, it is contended to allow the WP(C) No.2665/2025. 8. Per contra, Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the Government has filled up 371 nos. of vacant sanctioned posts of Lecturer (Technical and Non-Technical) in the Polytechnics through the regular recruitment process conducted by the Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board and further, the respondent authorities have taken a policy decision to re-engage the Part Time Faculties and Guest Lecturers on adhoc basis against sanctioned posts in accordance with the Page No.# 6/8 principles outlined in Regulation 3(f), as per the extant rules as applicable for appointments in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics in Assam and accordingly, the Government of Assam in Higher Education (Technical) Department vide Notification bearing e-File No.443823/20, dated 22.01.2025, had appointed 100 nos. of eligible candidates as Lecturer in Government Polytechnics of Assam as per Regulation 3(f) of the APSC, preferably who were previously engaged as part time Lecturers in Polytechnics by the Director of Technical Education, Assam, as was authorized by the Government and the said period was for a period of 4(four) months as per Personnel Department's O.M. related to appointment under Regulation 3(f) of APSC or till the time of replacement by regular employees, whichever is earlier and subsequently, the Government of Assam has released all those faculties appointed in the Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics of Assam under Regulation 3(f) of the APSC Regulation, 1951 and in view of above policy decision, the petitioners' case cannot be considered for being appointed as Lecturers in the Polytechnics under Regulation 3(f) and under circumstances, Mr. Das has contended to dismiss these petitions. 9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.938/2025, and it appears that the petitioners of the said writ petition were not considered by the respondent authorities for being appointed under provision of Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951 as per Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024, and thereafter, considering the Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024 and also considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for being appointed under Regulation 3(f) in the vacant post of Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics of Assam. In the WP(C) No.938/2025, vide order dated 01.05.2025, this Court has observed as under:- “11. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also taking note of the documents placed on record as well as the decision of the State Cabinet, Page No.# 7/8 this court is satisfied to hold that denying the benefit of Regulation 3(f) to the present petitioners is arbitrary and illegal on the face of the decision taken by the State Cabinet. It is well settled in the case of Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. (supra) that the Government shall speak only in one voice. It has only one policy. The departments are to implement the government policy and not their own policy. The relevant para is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “14. The State Government cannot speak in two voices. Once the Cabinet takes a policy decision to extend its 2004 Industrial Policy in the matter of CST concession to the eligible units beyond 31-3-2009, up to 31-3- 2013, and the Notification dated 29-5-2009, accordingly, having been issued by the Department concerned viz. Department of Industries, thereafter, the Excise Taxation Department cannot take a different stand. What is given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand. The Government shall speak only in one voice. It has only one policy. The departments are to implement the government policy and not their own policy. Once the Council of Ministers has taken a decision to extend the 2004 Industrial Policy and extend tax concession beyond 31-3-2009, merely because the Excise and Taxation Department took some time to issue the notification, it cannot be held that the eligible units are not entitled to the concession till the Department issued the notification." 12. While the State Cabinet approved engagement of all 451 part-time faculties on an ad-hoc basis, vide its decision, dated 24.09.2024, against the sanctioned posts in accordance with the principles outlined in Regulation 3(1) as per the extant rules as applicable for appointments in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics in Assam, then the respondent authorities cannot take different view. They have no other option but to carry out the decision of the Cabinet. 13. Indisputably, the respondent authorities, without any advertisement and without interview being conducted, had appointed 100 numbers of part-time faculties on ad-hoc basis, under Regulation 3(f). They could have appointed the Present petitioners also as per the policy decision taken by the Cabinet. But, the Present petitioners have been denied such benefit by the respondent authorities. And as such, the action of the respondent authorities is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal and bereft of any logic. The stand taken by the respondents in Page No.# 8/8 their affidavit is found to be unjustified and illegal being contrary to Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024. 14. The petitioners, thus, succeeded in establishing a case for interference of this court. Accordingly, the respondent authorities, by a mandamus of this court, are directed to consider the case of the present petitioners for being appointed under Regulation 3(f), in the vacant posts of the Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics in Assam.” 10. In the present cases, the respondent authorities have not disputed that the present petitioners are also similarly situated with the petitioners of the WP(C) No.938/2025. The vacancy position as indicated in the Annexure-2 of the additional affidavit of the respondent authorities indicates that 5(five) posts are lying vacant in Electrical Engineering Department in several Polytechnics of Assam. However, the said vacancy position does not indicate any post in the Civil Engineering Department. Under such circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioners in the WP(C) No.2651/2025 cannot be considered favourably and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the WP(C) No.2665/2025 stands allowed. 11. The respondent authorities, by a mandamus of this Court, are directed to appoint the petitioners of WP(C) No.2665/2025, being similarly situated in the vacant post of Lecturer in Electrical Engineering Department and the said exercise has to be carried out within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and shall place the same before the respondent authorities within 2(two) weeks from today. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE