Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010031572025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/938/2025 ANINDITA NATH D/O ADITYA KUMAR NATH, RESIDENT OF M.M SINGHA ROAD, BARPARA, PO AND DIST BARPETA ASSAM 783380 2: SIMI GOYARI D/O LATE ANANTA KUMAR GOYARI RESIDENT OF GANGA NAGAR NEAR AUXILIUM SCHOOL KOKRAJHAR P.O. TTAGURI DISTRICT KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN 783370 3: KABITA RAY D/O UTTAM RAY RESIDENT OF BHAKARIBHITA CHOUDHURYPARA P.O. and DISTRICT BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN - 783380 4: BIJITA SINHA D/O NIRMAL SINHA RESIDENT OF VILL-DHALIGAON P.O. DHALIGAON DISTRICT BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN - 783385. 5: DIGANTA KUMAR D/O LATE ATUL CH. KUMAR RESIDENT OF MALIGAON Page No.# 2/9 BORIPARA P.O. PANDU GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP(M) ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 2:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION GUWAHATI ASSAM 4:THE PRINCIPAL BONGAIGAON POLYTECHNIC MULAGAON RABHAPARA DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783380 5:THE PRINCIPAL NALBARI POLYTECHNIC NEAR CHANDKUCHI POST OFFICE CHANDKUCHI MOHKHOLI DIST NALBARI ASSAM 781334 6:THE PRINCIPAL BARPETA POLYTECHNIC BARPETA TOWN DIST BARPETA ASSAM PIN - 787059 7:THE PRINCIPAL ASSAM ENGINEERING INSTITUTE Page No.# 3/9 WEST JYOTI NAGAR KRISHNA NAGAR CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 DIST KMARUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH, MS. P HANDIQUE,MR. P K BORDOLOI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 01.05.2025 Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department. 2. The grievance of the petitioners, being sought to be addressed by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that they were not considered by the respondent authorities for being appointed, under the provisions of Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Services Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951, as per Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024. 3. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1, Smti Anindita Nath, was appointed by the Principal of Bongaigaon Polytechnic, on 30.07.2018, as part time Lecturer (contractual) in Civil Engineering Department; the petitioner No. 2, Smti Simi Goyari, was appointed by the Principal of Bongaigaon Polytechnic, on 29.12.2020, as part time Lecturer (contractual) in Electrical Engineering Department of the Institute; and the petitioner No. 3, Smti Kabita Ray, was appointed by the Principal of Nalbari Page No.# 4/9 Polytechnic, as part time Lecturer (contractual) in Mechanical Engineering in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering on 12.02.2020; the petitioner No. 4, Smti Bijita Sinha, was appointed by the Principal of Barpeta Polytechnic, as part time faculty (contractual) in Chemistry Department on 21.08.2019; and the petitioner No. 5, Shri Diganta Kumar, was appointed by the Principal of Assam Engineering Institute, as part time Lecturer (contractual) in Chemical Engineering Department on 16.03.2015. 3.1. After being appointed in their respective post, the services of the petitioners were extended from time to time and they had rendered their services continuously till their release on 06.11.2024 and 08.11.2024, by the Principals of their colleges, due to the Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024. 3.2. Mr. Baruah, referring to a decision of Cabinet dated 24.09.2024, Annexure No. 10, at page No. 64 of the petition, submits that including the petitioners, there were altogether 451 candidates, working in different departments of the Polytechnic in Assam. Mr. Baruah further submits that the State Cabinet had taken a decision to re-engage the 451 Nos. of part-time faculties on ad-hoc basis against the sanctioned posts, in accordance with the principles outlined in Regulation 3(f) as per the extant rules as applicable for appointments in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics in Assam. Thereafter, pursuant to Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024, the petitioners were released from their services and thereafter, without any advertisement and without any interview, out of 451 part-time faculties, 100 numbers of faculties have been appointed under Regulation 3(f) in different Polytechnics, vide Annexure No. 16, dated 22.01.2025, for a period of four months. But, in clear violation to the decision of State Cabinet, the respondent authorities have appointed only 100 numbers of part-time faculties. Mr. Baruah also submits that the present Page No.# 5/9 petitioners, despite having sufficient qualification as well as experience for being appointed on ad-hoc basis in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, denied the benefit. 3.3. Mr. Baruah, referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015) 324 ELT 248, submits that if the State Cabinet had taken a policy decision to appoint the part-time faculties, working on contractual basis, under the Regulation 3(f), then the respondents authorities cannot taken a different view from that of the Cabinet. And in the instance case, since the respondent authorities, without any advertisement and without any interview, have appointed 100 numbers of teacher on ad-hoc basis, under the Regulation 3(f), they could have appoint the present petitioners also as per the policy decision taken by the Cabinet. But, the present petitioners have been denied such benefit and as such, the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is contended to interfere with the same and to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for being appointed under Regulation 3(f). . 3.4. In support of his submission, Mr. Baruah has also referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kaushal Kishore Singh and Others, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 104. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, referring to paragraph No. 10 of the affidavit-in- opposition, submits that the present petitioners were part time faculty members, who were engaged purely on temporary basis by the respective Principals of the Polytechnics and Engineering Institutes, and they shall be taken Page No.# 6/9 under the zone of consideration for re-engagement in terms of the principles outlined in Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951 subject to necessity, availability of vacancy of relevant posts, eligibility and merit of the candidates. 4.1. Mr. Das further submits that the present petitioners were engaged by the Principals on part time basis and the Cabinet has approved the engagement of those faculties who were engaged on ad-hoc basis against the sanctioned posts. 4.2. Mr. Das also submits that the respondent authorities have already published advertisement for the posts and interview is going on and some of the petitioners also appeared in the interview and there is no vacant posts in fact and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024. 6. It is to be noted here that the Cabinet decision, dated 24.09.2024, read as under:- "The Cabinet rejected the proposal for change of nomenclature of the Part-Time Faculty and Guest Faculty engaged in various Polytechnic Colleges and Government Engineering Colleges across Assam as Contractual Faculty. Instead, the Cabinet approved engagement of these faculties on an ad-hoc basis 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." 7. Thus, from a bare perusal of the Cabinet decision, it appears that the Page No.# 7/9 same negate the stand taken by the respondent authorities in paragraph No. 10 of their affidavit-in-opposition. 8. Admittedly, for being appointed 100 numbers of faculty in Government Engineering Colleges, vide Notification dated 22.01.2025, Annexure No. 16, neither any advertisement was published nor any interview was held by the respondent authorities. Also admittedly, the present petitioners have all requisite qualification for being appointed on ad-hoc basis under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951. 9. Mr. Das, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, however, submits that the matter is still under consideration of the respondent authorities and for filling up of the vacant post, advertisement has already been published and interview is being held. 10. However, to a pointed query of the court Mr. Das submits that some posts are yet to be filled up though advertisement for filling up the same by regular faculties had already been initiated and interview was also held for the same. 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, 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:- Page No.# 8/9 “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 and 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. Page No.# 9/9 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 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. 15. The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a week from today. 16. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant