WP(C) 7434/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK POTSANGBAM 1. Heard Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T . Islam, learned State counsel. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: i) As the college, namely Dikhowmukh College in Sibasagar District received the deficit grant-in-aid from the Government from 11.1.1996, the services of th e petitioner as Librarian of the college should have been approved by the author ity on and from that date, instead of 13.11.1997; and ii) The UGC scale as extended to 29 under-qualified Librarians of the said c ollege, without increment, should also be extended to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed temporarily as Libra rian in the Dikhowmukh College, Moglow, Sibsagar by the Governing Body of that c ollege through its Principal and Secretary vide order dated 20.1.91 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). The college started receiving deficit grant-in-aid from 11.1.96. The petitioner was appointed without having any requisite qualificatio n, for being a Librarian. He, however, obtained B.Lib. Degree/Certificate on 13 .1.97 and thereafter, M.Lib. in 2002. 4. The first grievance of the petitioner is that despite the direction of the Government, issued vide communication No.B(2)H-1155/92/124 dated 17.3.99 (An nexure-B to the writ petition) to approve the appointment of the petitioner as L ibrarian in the Dikhowmukh College, Sibsagar with effect from 11.1.96, the Direc tor of Higher Education, Assam has accorded approval of the petitioner’s appoint ment as Librarian only with effect from 13.1.97 under order No.G(B)ACN/14/96/86 dated 13.7.99 and this order is impugned in the writ petition. 5. The second grievance of the petitioner is that 29 under-qualified Librar ians had been given fixed UGC scale, without increment, by the Government and as such, there is no reason or justification as to why such benefit of UGC should not be extended to him either with effect form 11.1.96 or with effect from 13.1. 97. 6. An affidavit has been filed by the Government, wherein it has been state d that the qualification prescribed by the UGC at the relevant point of time for appointment as a Librarian was (i) First or Second Class Graduate in Arts/Scien ce/Commerce plus First or Second Class of Post Graduate Degree in Library Scienc e; or (ii) First or Second Class in Post Graduate Degree in any subject plus Bac helor Degree in Library Science, and those who are having the said qualification s are eligible for appointment as Librarian with the entitlement of UGC scale an d the aforesaid qualification prescribed in the communication dated 30.12.91 was circulated by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. The explanation given b y the Government is that as the petitioner obtained B.Lib. only on 13.1.97, his appointment as Librarian in the said college could not be approved beyond 13.1.9 7. 7. When the college was first given the deficit grant-in-aid from 11.1.96, admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification prescribe d by the aforesaid Notification dated 30.12.91. Further, the petitioner was work ing as Librarian with effect from 20.1.91 in the said College against non-sancti oned post. 8. In view of the above, the approval given to the appointment of the petit ioner as Librarian with effect from 13.1.97 is perfectly in consonance with the norms laid down by the UGC and as such, this order dated 13.7.97 does not suffer from any irregularity warranting any interference from this Court. Hence, the prayer on the first grievance is rejected. 9. With regards to the second grievance of the petitioner, it is the explan ation of the respondents that 29 under-qualified Librarians referred to in the w rit petition, have been appointed prior to 1.1.86 and at that point of time the qualification for appointment of Librarian as prescribed by the communication da ted 30.12.91 (Annexure-R/1) was not available and the same is not applicable to those 29 under-qualified Librarians who were said to have been governed by separ ate norms and rules prevalent at the point of time. The particulars and details of 29 under-qualified Librarians are not available in the writ petition, though the plea of discrimination is founded on their appointment as Librarians with fi xed pay of the UGC. 10. In view of the above, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any case of discrimination as the 29 under-qualified Librarians, who were appointed prior to 1.1.86, were said to have been governed by separate norms and rules an d hence, this second plea is also not accepted. 11. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that t he petitioner became eligible for appointment as Librarian with effect from 24.1 2.2002, on which date he acquired the M.Lib. Degree, in terms of the Govt. Notif ication dated 30.12.91, and as such, I do not find any reason or justification w hy the benefit of UGC scale should not be extended to the petitioner with effect from the date he became eligible for the same. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider for extension of the benefit of UGC scale to the petitione r with effect from the date when he became eligible, i.e. on 24.12.02. 12. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months fr om the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands disp osed of. No cost.