HIRANMOY BHATTACHERJEE AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Rules arise out of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. They came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court presided over by my learned colleagues, Rain Labhaya and Delta JJ. That Bench was of opinion that these cases involved questions of general importance and it was, therefore, desirable that they should be heard by a larger Bench of this Court. In pursuance of that recommendation contained in their order, dated 23 -6 -53, this Full Bench was constituted to hear these Rules.

(2.) THE facts involved in the two cases are substantially common and they also involve common questions of law. They can be, therefore, conveniently disposed of together by this judgment. The material facts have been set out in the aforesaid order of reference, but it would be just as well to recapitulate the relevant details there. Civil Revn. No. 58 of 1951. Briefly stated, the Petitioner's case is that immediately preceding the partition of India he was a Gazetted Officer in Class II of the Assam Educational. Service and had been holding the post of a Lecturer in Bengali in Murarichand College, Sylhet. He had a starting salary of Rs. 195/ -per mensem beginning from 19 -2 -47 with annual increment falling due on the 19th of February of each subsequent year and also with prospect of promotion to Class I.

(3.) THE Petitioner submits that the order dispensing with his services is altogether illegal and has caused serious loss and damage to him. The petition then goes on to recite various facts which, according to the Petitioner, establish mala fides of the State Government in dispensing with his services and in seeking to discriminate between one set of employees and another on the ground that the Petitioner and some other employees were of Bengali origin. The Petitioner states that he was appointed to the Assam Educational Service under the Government of Assam by the Secretary to the Government in the Department of Education, as would appear from the Gazette Notification, but the order of his dismissal from service, as contained in the above Memo, of 21 -4 -48, was issued by the Assistant Director of Public Instruction, which officer was subordinate to the Secretary and had no power to dismiss or discharge the Petitioner or terminate his services.