ABUTALHA MD. SAMSUZZUHA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Abutalha Md. Samsuzzuha
The State Of Assam And 7 Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
SUMAN SHYAM,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Assam, appearing on behalf of the official respondents as well as Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.8.
(2.) The writ petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Bechimari Girls' M. E. Madrassa on 27.07.2001 on the basis of a recommendation of the Executive Committee dated 26.07.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner had joined in the said post and has been rendering his services till date. The respondent No.8, viz., Md. Suruj Ali was also appointed in the Bechimari Girls' ME Madrassa on 03.01.1994 as an Additional Teacher and has been serving in the said post till today. Although the petitioner had joined service much later than the respondent No.8, yet, by the order dated 23.06.2016, the services of the writ petitioner was provincialised as an Assistant Teacher of Bechimari Girls' ME Madrassa. Earlier the respondent No.8 had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2980/2013 seeking a direction upon the respondents to provincialise his services as an Assistant Teacher of the Bechimari Girls' ME Madrassa and this Court by order dated 15.05.2014 had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the District Elementary Education Officer, Darrang to place the service records of both the petitioner and the respondent No.8 before the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC) so as to examine their cases and do the needful in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. In terms of the directions contained in the order dated 15.05.2014 the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC), Darrang had met and examined the records pertaining to the writ petitioner and the respondent No.8 whereafter, a minute of the meeting dated 28.04.2015 was drawn up whereby it was observed that the respondent No.8 herein was appointed in the year 1993 on the basis of recommendation made by the Managing Committee which was approved by the DEEO in the year 1994. In the minutes dated 28.04.2015, it was further observed that the appointment of the writ petitioner in the post of Assistant Teacher in the Bechimari Girls' ME Madrassa was made in the year 2001 but since the name of the respondent No.8 was not shown earlier by the Headmaster in the records forwarded from the school, the proposal for provincialisation of services of the writ petitioner was approved.
(3.) It appears from the record that subsequently the respondent No.8 had once again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.6974/2015 assailing the order of provincialisation of the service of the writ petitioner herein, inter alia, contending that his appointment being prior to that of the petitioner, he was senior in service and therefore, was entitled for being considered for provincialisation of his services. By the order dated 20.11.2015 this Court had disposed of WP(C) No.6974/2015 by directing the authorities to act in terms of the recommendations of the District Scrutiny Committee, Darrang dated 28.04.2015 . Acting on the basis of the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by this Court, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam i.e. the respondent No.2 had issued the impugned order dated 18.07.2016 cancelling the order of provincialisation of the services of the petitioner dated 23.06.2016 and by issuing another order on the same date i.e. 18.07.2016, the services of the respondent No.8 has been provincialised. WP(C) No.4489/2016 had been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders both dated 18.07.2016 issued by the respondent No.2. In WP(C) No.3996/2018, the recommendations made by the District Scrutiny Committee, Darrang on 28.04.2015 has been put under challenge.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.