MANESWAR KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-47
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 10,2018

Maneswar Kalita Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 4 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. BD Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. RC Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. DN Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
(2.) The petitioner is amongst the three science teachers, who were serving in the Baramboi Girls' High School and is having the combination of Geology, Chemistry and Mathematics. During the stage of provincialisation of the concerned school, as per the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provision of Services) Act, 2011 in short Act of 2011, two posts of science teacher were available for being provincialised. Out of the aforesaid two posts, the teacher who was senior most was provincialised against one of the post. Now the question remains, as to who between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 would be provincialised against the remaining post. In the given circumstance, the respondent No.5 preferred the writ petition being WP(C)No.2803/2013, inter alia, seeking the direction that his services be provincialised against the remaining post. The plea that the respondent No.5 had taken in the WP(C) No.2803/2013 was that he had the subject combination of Physics Chemistry and Mathematics which would suit the requirement for recognition of the school by the SEBA as the teachers comprising of all the subject combinations would be available amongst the teaching staff, and therefore, he is entitled for a provincialisation.
(3.) Accordingly, the respondent No. 5 took the plea that if the present petitioner is provincialised, it would not meet the requirement of there being a subject combination of all the subjects taught in the school. The said plea of the respondent No.5 stood rejected in the order dated 02.05.2014, and, accordingly, it was held that the said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that seniority cannot be determined on the basis of the need for the services of the respondent No.5 to teach physics and mathematics, inasmuch as, no such provision is made in the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. It was provided that the seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 be now determined in accordance with the 2nd proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act of 2011. Against the said order, a writ appeal being WA No.226/2014 was also preferred which was given a consideration by the order dated 19.06.2014 by providing that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 be referred to the District Scrutiny Committee. Against that order a review was preferred by the present petitioner being Review Pet. No.74/2015, whereby the order dated 19.06.2014 was recalled requiring the appeal to be decided afresh. Thereupon by the order dated 24.06.2015, the WA No. 296/2017 was dismissed on being infructuous. On the appeal being dismissed, the implication thereof was that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.05.2014 stands.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.