Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010119172021 2025:GAU-AS:9114 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3996/2021 MONOJ KUMAR TELI S/O LATE RANGI CH. TELI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAYANPUR, PS LAKHIPUR, DIST CACHAR, ASSAM, 788098. … ..Petitioner -VERSUS - 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI 19, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06, KAMRUP M, ASSAM, 4:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. … ..Respondents – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Barman, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department, for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4. Page No.# 2/7 : Mrs. D.D. Barman, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3. Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025. Date of judgment : 15.07.2025. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 and Mrs. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No.3. [2] This is the second time the petitioner is before this Court. The first writ petition, being WP(C) No.769/2019, was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2019 by directing the respondent authorities concerned to examine the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Electrical Engineering) in Polytechnic in terms of the Assam Technical Education Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 1981”) and if his case falls within the zone of consideration for promotion, such consideration should be done within a period of 3(three) months. [3] Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a regular Senior Instructor (Electrical Engineering) vide order dated 03.09.1992 and he has the qualification of Bachelor of Technology (B. Tech.) in Electrical Engineering. Subsequently, vide order dated 10.12.2004, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Foreman (Electrical Engineering) in Silchar Polytechnic. It is the case of the petitioner that having vast experience in teaching as Senior Page No.# 3/7 Instructor and Foreman (Electrical Engineering) in Polytechnic, he is eligible to be promoted to the post of Lecturer in Polytechnic and for which he had submitted as many as 4(four) representations, i.e. dated 28.03.2008, 18.12.2012, 04.08.2015 and 26.11.2018. However, as his case was not considered, he had initiated WP(C) No.769/2019. [4] As directed by this Court in the said writ petition, the case of the petitioner came to be considered by the constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 10.09.2020 in the Office Chamber of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education (Technical) Department. However, the DPC found the petitioner to be lacking the requisites as prescribed by the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2004 since he was only having second class Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering. Therefore, he was found to be not eligible to be promoted to the post of Lecturer in terms of the Rules of 1981. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court. [5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2004 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. In fact, the case of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Lecturer is governed by Rule 11(3)(c) of the Assam Technical Education Service Rules, 1981 (Rules of 1981). The learned counsel submits that the Rules of 1981 came to be amended by the Assam Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Amendment Rules, 2008”), by which it was provided that in order to be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer, one must possess the qualification and experience as prescribed for the cadre of Lecturer (Polytechnic) as prescribed by the AICTE from time to time which is adopted by the Government of Assam. According to Page No.# 4/7 the petitioner, he had already submitted an application for considering his promotion to the post of Lecturer on 28.03.2008 prior to the Amendment Rules of 2008 being notified. Therefore, the same cannot be made applicable to his case. [6] The learned counsel also submits that the AICTE norms are meant for direct recruitment and not for promotion. Since the case of the petitioner is for promotion from the post of Foreman, the AICTE norms will not apply to his case. [7] The learned counsel also submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court had considered a similar issue in WP(C) No.3327/2011 (Pradip Kr. Tamuly -Vs- State of Assam & Anr.), wherein it was held that the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2004 providing for enhanced eligibility criteria is for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Polytechnic and will not be applicable in case of promotion from Senior Technician to Lecturer. The learned counsel submits that the post of Senior Technician, Senior Instructor and Foreman are all in the same cadre and the feeder post for promotion to the post of Lecturer and, therefore, having regard to the said decision, the Amendment Rules of 2008 by which the AICTE norms have been adopted cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned DPC meeting minutes dated 10.09.2020 should be set aside and the petitioner should be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer. [8] Per contra, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, submits that the case of Pradip Kr. Tamuly (supra) is not applicable to the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that in the former case, he was considered for promotion as far back in 2006-2007, prior to the Page No.# 5/7 Amendment Rules of 2008 being notified. Mr. Gogoi submits that the AICTE norms have been adopted by the Government of Assam in the Higher Education (Technical) Department, which clearly provide that in order to be eligible to be appointed as Lecturer, one has to possess the qualification of first class Bachelor Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology, as stipulated in Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2004 and thereafter, vide Office Memorandum dated 18.01.2016. Admittedly as the petitioner does not have the first class Bachelor Degree in Engineering, he is not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Polytechnic. [9] The learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department also submits that a writ petition, being WP(C) No.1944/2019 on the same issue, was filed by one Sri Ganesh Kalita, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2023 held that the Rules of 1981 had been amended in the year 2008 whereby the qualification and experience, as prescribed by the AICTE, were made part of the statute and therefore, the contention of the petitioner therein that such qualification and experience would not be applicable in the case of promotion and whould be confined only to direct recruitment, was not accepted. The learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education submits that in arriving to such decision, the Court had also referred to the case of Pradip Kr. Tamuly (supra) and observed that the said case relates to DPC held at earlier point of time in 2006-2007 and therefore, cannot be compared with the case at hand. [10] Learned Standing Counsel submits that such being the position and having regard to the Rules in force at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner by the DPC, his case was rightly rejected. In support of his Page No.# 6/7 submission, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 319. [11] This Court has considered the submissions made by the rival parties and also perused the material available on record. The issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner despite not possessing first class Degree in Engineering can be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Polytechnic)? [12] Prior to the amendment of the Rules of 1981, the original Rules of 1981 provided that the academic qualification and experience will be as those provided in Schedule II of the Rules. Clause 10 of Schedule II provides that in order to be eligible to be considered for the post of Lecturer (Polytechnic), one must possess at least Second class Diploma and Diploma of T.T.T.I. with 3(three) years teaching of industrial experience or Bachelor Degree in Engineering/Technology or equivalent or A.M.I.E. (by Examination). However, by the amendment of the Rules of 1981 in 2008, the AICTE norms came to be adopted and as per the AICTE norms, the qualification prescribed is first class Degree in Engineering. Although the petitioner has claimed that he was eligible to be considered as per the unamended Rules of 1981, in view of having submitted an application as far on 28.03.2008, it is noticed that the Amendment Rules of 2008, although notified in the Assam Gazette on 21.07.2008, was made effective from 01.01.1996 as per Clause/Rule 1(iii). Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be considered as per the unamended Rules without challenging the retrospective effect given to the Amendment Rules of 2008. [13] This Court is also in agreement with the decision rendered in Page No.# 7/7 Ganesh Kalita (supra) that once the Rules provide for particular requirement of qualification and experience, the same cannot be overlooked in making the consideration of the candidates for promotion to the post of Lecturer. [14] Under the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant