WA 185/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Katakey, J. This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the judgm ent and order dated 03-03-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.58 32/2005, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant claimin g the salary in the regular UGC scale of pay has been dismissed. 2. The appellant filed the said writ petition claiming the salary i n regular UGC scale of pay with effect from 27-09-1999 and challenging the order dated 13-06-2005 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department rejecting such claim on the ground that the petitioner having not possessed the required UGC norms, i.e. 55% marks in Maste r Degree and not appointed on or before 15-12-1988, is not entitled to the salar y in the said scale of pay. 3. The said writ petition had been filed by the appellant praying f or the aforesaid relief contending inter alia that though he was appointed in Mo irabari College by the Governing Body after 15-12-1988, i.e. the date when the G overnment of Assam had accepted the UGC norms applicable to the colleges receivi ng the grants-in-aid, since 11 (eleven) other similarly placed lecturers appoint ed in other non Government colleges, which were subsequently brought under the d eficit system of grants-in-aid and who also do not possess the required UGC norm s, were given the benefit of such scale, the respondents cannot deny such benefi t to the appellant, who is similarly placed. It was also the contention of the appellant in the writ petition that in an earlier round of litigation, i.e. in Civil Rule No.811/1998 instituted by him, a Single Bench of this Court vide judg ment and order dated 23-11-1998 while directing the State to pay the fixed pay o f Rs.2200/- (Rupees twenty two hundred) per month with other allowances as admis sible under the Rules with effect from 11-01-1996 to the appellant, had held tha t he cannot be deprived from the benefit of fixed pay as has been granted to oth er 11 underqualified lecturers, with effect from 11-01-1996, on the ground that the appellant joined as lecturer in Moirabari College on 21-03-1989, and as such , according to the appellant, he having been placed in the same position as that of those 11 underqualified lecturers, is entitled to the benefit of regular UGC scale of pay, which has subsequently been given them. 4. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, in the affidavit-in-opp osition filed has taken the stand that the appellant is not entitled to salary i n the UGC scale of pay, he having not secured 55% marks in Master Degree, which is an essential condition for granting the salary in the said scale of pay and a lso having not joined Moirabari College as lecturer on or before 15-12-1988, on which date the Government of Assam had decided to introduce the revised UGC Sche me in the Universities, Government and non Government colleges in the State with effect from 15-12-1988. It is also the contention of the said respondent in th e said affidavit-in-opposition that the Government, thereafter, as an exception to the prevailing UGC norms decided to relax the said norms to the extent of 52. 50% in Master Degree in case of lecturers who had joined before 15-12-1988 and t he appellant having not joined the service before the said cut off date, is not entitled to the salary in the said scale of pay, which was given to those 11 oth er lecturers, as they joined as lecturers in their respective colleges before 15 -12-1988. 5. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 03-03-200 8 has rejected the claim of the appellant for salary in the regular scale of pay on the ground that he did not join as lecturer in the college on or before 15-1 2-1988, i.e. the date fixed by the Government while relaxing the UGC norms to 52 .50% in respect of the lecturers, who were in service on that date. 6. We have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the a ppellant and Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department app earing for the respondents. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant referring to the averments made in the writ petition as well as the affidavits filed there in and also the judgment and order dated 23-11-1998 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No.811/1998 has submitted that the payment of salary in the UGC scale of pay has no relation with the date on which the appellant joine d the college as lecturer, as is evident from the finding recorded in the said j udgment. According to the learned Senior Counsel, by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 23-11-1998, this Court had held that the appellant is entitled to t he fixed pay of Rs.2200/- per month plus other allowances as admissible, with ef fect from 11-01-1996, as was given to those 11 underqualified lecturers and thos e lecturers having been given salary in the regular UGC scale of pay, the appell ant is also entitled to the same, when the finding recorded in the said judgment has attained finality, having not been challenged in the higher forum. 8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, Education Department s upporting the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has contende d that the appellant having not joined as lecturer in the college on or before 1 5-12-1988 is not entitled to the salary in the UGC scale of pay as the Governmen t of Assam had decided to relax the UGC norms in respect of those lecturers, who had joined as lecturer on or before 15-12-1988. According to Mr. Thomas, the a ppellant is not similarly placed with those eleven lecturers of different other colleges as, while the appellant was appointed as lecturers after 15-12-1988, th ose eleven lecturers were appointed before that date. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for th e parties and also perused the materials made available including the judgment a nd order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. It is not in dispute that the Government of Assam had decided to introduce the revised UGC norms in the Universities, Government and non Governm ent colleges in Assam with effect from 15-12-1988. As per the UGC norms prevail ing on that date, a candidate had to secure 55% marks in the Master Degree so as to qualify himself for appointment as lecturer. The Government of Assam, howev er, in respect of the existing lecturers, i.e. the persons who had already been appointed in the said capacity on or before 15-12-1988, decided to relax the nor ms to 52.50% in Master Degree. The appellant as well as those eleven lecturers, to whom the UGC scale of pay was extended, do not admittedly have the required UGC norms of 55% marks in the Master Degree. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as lecturer in Moirabari College on 21-03-1989, i.e. mu ch after the cut off date of 15-12-1988, and on the other hand, those eleven lec turers were appointed prior to the said date, i.e. 15-12-1988. The appellant, t herefore, is not similarly placed with those eleven lecturers, who were appointe d prior to 15-12-1988 and were granted the salary in the UGC scale of pay pursua nt to the decision of the Government for relaxation of UGC norms in respect of t he lecturers, who had already been appointed on or before 15-12-1988. The cut o ff date, i.e. 15-12-1988, as fixed by the Government for such benefit also canno t be held to be arbitrary as, the Government had decided to introduce the revise d UGC norms in the Universities, Government and non Government colleges in Assam with effect from that date. 11. The contention of the appellant that since a Single Bench of thi s Court vide judgment and order dated 23-11-1998 passed in Civil Rule No.811/199 8 had held that the appellant is similarly placed with the other 11 underqualifi ed lecturers and as such, he is entitled to the benefit of fixed pay as has been granted to those lecturers with effect from 11-01-1996, he is also entitled to the salary in the UGC scale of pay, the same having been granted to those 11 und erqualified lecturers, cannot at all be accepted since in the said writ petition the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to the salary in the UGC s cale of pay though at the time of his appointment, i.e. on 21-03-1989, he did no t satisfy the UGC norms, was not in issue. Moreover the Government took the dec ision to give the benefit of the UGC scale of pay to those lecturers who have jo ined on or before 15-12-1988, which has also not been challenged by the appellan t. That apart if the appellant is directed to be given his salary in the UGC sc ale of pay, it would amount to violation of such norms which entitles a person t o receive the salary in the said scale subject to fulfillment of the UGC laid do wn norms, i.e. 55% marks in Master Degree Examination, which the appellant does not possess. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant having not been appoin ted as lecturer in Moirabari College on or before 15-12-1988 is not entitled to the salary in the UGC scale of pay as has been granted to those eleven other lec turers of different colleges in Assam, who were appointed as such prior to 15-12 -1988. The said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefor e, requires no interference. Hence the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.