MALATI BEPARI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 15.11.2019 Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) In these petitions, the petitioner is claiming for provincialisation. It has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation has been wrongly rejected. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Teacher of Kaimari M.E. Madrassa by an order dated 04.02.1996 by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said Madrassa and thereafter vide order dated 06.10.2004 her service was approved by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Dhubri along with others.

(3.) The petitioner claims that the said school was provincialized on 23.02.1980, but the said provincialisation order was kept in abeyance because of certain disputes. But subsequently, the said order keeping the provincialisation in abeyance was vacated by order dated 04.08.2008 on the basis of certain enquiry report. The claim of the petitioner is that during the period when the provincialisation order was issued in 1980 till the order of keeping abeyance of provincialisation was lifted in 2008, not only the petitioner but many other teachers, namely, Abu Bakkar Siddique, Abdur Rafique, Abdul Hoque, Nabanita Mandal, Esha Hoque and Benojur Ahmed were appointed by the Managing Committee on 08.08.1983, 09.01.1994, 10.01.1991, 29.10.1990, 21.04.1992 and 19.01.1981. However, subsequently their services were provincialized leaving out the petitioner and accordingly, being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.43512010, which was disposed of on 24.08.2011 and this Court directed that the case of the petitioner be placed before the High Power Committee. Pursuant thereto, the case of the petitioner was placed before the High Power Committee, but the High Power Committee in their meeting held on 22.12.2012 rejected the case of the petitioner with the following observation-