ISHAQUE UDDIN MAZUMDAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has come before this Court for hearing. The Government has not filed any affidavit nor produced any record, After hearing the learned Counsel at length I decide to dispose of the matter on merit of the petition.

(2.) DURING the course of argument Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in Civil Rule No. 2307/91 some writ Petitioners prayed for a mandamus directing the Respondents to pay due salaries to the Petitioners. This Court vide order dated 13.8.91 finally disposed of the case directing the concerned Respondents to pay the due salaries to the Petitioners within a period of two months and further observed that if the appointment of the Petitioners were irregular then there will be no bar to terminate their services in accordance with law. Emboldened with that order, it is alleged, the Respondents terminated the present ten writ Petitioners from their services by order dated 30th September, 1991. The impugned termination order (Annexure -14 to the writ petition) indicates that after careful consideration of the reply to the show cause notice served upon the Petitioners it was found that the appointment of the Petitioners were irregular. The abovementioned Civil Rule No. 2307/91 which is said to be similar, with the present one, as Mr. Phukan urges, covers the present Writ Petitioner's case. Admittedly the Petitioners were appointed in some non sanctioned posts, that they did not face any interview, that they were not selected by any selection process as per existing statutory provisions contained in the Rules for appointment/recruitment of elementary school teachers and that all the Petitioners were appointed (Annexures -1 to 10 to the writ petition) in pursuance to the order of the Secretary, Education Dept, Govt. of Assam, by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Slichar. The Petitioners is that after such appointment, the Petitioners are Government employees and as such valuable right to the posts has accrued to them and that the Petitioners are entitled to show cause notice and proper enquiry should have been held. It is further contended that though in name, a show cause notice was served on the Petitioners, they duly showed cause highlighting, their rights to the posts as being regularly appointed, after verification of all particulars pertaining to their eligibility and that the alleged notice dated 26.4.91 (Annexure -12 to the writ petition) is vague as at does not disclose any provision of Govt. Instructions being violated. Petitioners allege mala fide in issuing the notice of show cause.

(3.) AS visualised from the Annexures all the Petitioners were appointed by the Respondent No. 5, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar on order of the Education Secretary, Govt. of Assam. It is also admitted fact that the schools in which Petitioners were appointed are provincialised schools. The admitted position of law is that after provincialisation of the Primary Schools, M.E. Schools and Madrassas recruitment to those schools has to be made under the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 (in short Rule, 1977) These Rules has been made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 27 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974. Section 3 in Part -I of the Rules, 1977 is quoted below: