Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 340 (GAU)

Bijumoni Saharia v. State of Assam

2003-07-28

RANJAN GOGOI

body2003
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. B.P. Kataki, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4. 2. The challenge in the present writ application is against an order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by the Respondent No. 5 adjusting the 4th respondent against the vacancy caused by the transfer of one Chandi Ram Sarma, Hindi Teacher from the Maroi M.E. Madrassa, Mangaldoi to Sevak M.E. School, Biaspara. The aforesaid challenge has been made in the following facts and circumstances : The Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Honorary Teacher in the Maroi M.E. Madrassa in the year 1999. Thereafter, a regular vacancy occurred in the said school on account of transfer of one Chandi Ram Sarma who was working as a Hindi Teacher. The aforesaid person was transferred to Sevak M.E. School, Biaspara and he was released from the Maroi M.E. Madrassa on 29.4.2000. Even before the release of the Respondent No. 4, it appears that the impugned order dated 24th April, 2000 was passed. The petitioners had offered themselves as candidates for filling up available vacancies in the school in question. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present proceeding. From the documents brought on record by the respective parties, it has now become clear that after the impugned order dated 24th April, 2000 was passed, by another order dated 7.12.2000, the respondent No. 4 has been appointed and readjusted as a Hindi Teacher in the Maroi M.E. Madrassa, Mangaldoi, The aforesaid appointment of the respondent No. 4 made by order dated 7th December, 2000 is pursuant to the Government order dated 28.11,2000 as well as the communication of the Director of Elementary Education dated 6.12.2000, both of which communications are available on record. 3. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for other petitioners argued that the adjustment of the respondent No. 4 that has been made is against all cannons of fair play inasmuch as the respondent No. 4 has been hand-picked for such adjustment. 3. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for other petitioners argued that the adjustment of the respondent No. 4 that has been made is against all cannons of fair play inasmuch as the respondent No. 4 has been hand-picked for such adjustment. It is the case of the write petitioners that the aforesaid adjustment was made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Board constituted by the Headmaster of the school and that though it has now been pleaded that an advertisement has been issued for the said purpose, the same is a false and fabricated document. Learned counsel has further argued that the appointment/adjustment of the respondent No. 4 has been made by abusing the power vested in the respondents and that the aforesaid actions of the respondent No. 4 have the effect of overlooking the claims of the writ petitioners. 4. The arguments advanced as well as the facts on which the same have been made are disputed. The respondents in the affidavit filed as well as in the oral arguments made contend that the selection made was for the purpose of Honorary Teacher and it was made in the year 1999. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Honorary Teacher in the year 1999. Thereafter, following the policy for regularisation of Honorary Teachers as circulated by Office Memorandum dated 21.6.2000, the case of the respondent No. 4 was considered and she was regularised by way of adjustment against the vacancy caused by the transfer in question. Learned State counsel, Mr. Talukdar, has been asked repeatedly by the Court to show the manner in which the case of the respondent No. 4 was taken up for regularisation in accordance with the Government policy in force; whether the case of the said respondent was considered by the Task Force duly constituted for the said purpose and whether the respondent No. 4's case was considered along with other eligible candidates. The answers received are largely in the negative. To save the situation, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 stepped in and has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents enclosed to the affidavit of the said respondent and marked as Annexures-21, 22 and 23. The answers received are largely in the negative. To save the situation, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 stepped in and has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents enclosed to the affidavit of the said respondent and marked as Annexures-21, 22 and 23. Annexure-23 is the order of appointment dated 7.12.2000, by a adjustment, which is stated to be pursuant to the Government order dated 28.11.2000 and the Director of Elementary Education's letter dated 6.12.2000, the Government order dated 21.11.2000 and the Director's letter dated 6.10.2000 which are marked as Annexures-21 and 22 to the respondent's affidavit does not indicate that the manner and procedure contemplated by the Government notification dated 21.6.2000 was followed in the instant case. The said communications merely reveal the desire, if not the anxiety of the two officers for suitable accommodation of the respondent No. 4. In such a situation, this Court is left with no other option but to conclude that the regularisation of the respondent No. 4 by way of adjustment against the transfer vacancy in the Maroi M.E. Madrassa, Mangaldoi was not made in accordance with the Government policy in force. The order of regularisation dated 24th April, 2000 as well the 7th December, 2000 are, therefore, interfered with by this Court. The net result of the above is that the respondent No. 4 would continue to remain as a Honorary Teacher and she would be entitled to consideration for regularisation in accordance with the prevailing policy in force. This Court has been told that a new policy for such regularisation has been promulgated by the State Government in the month of January 2003. In that case the respondent No. 4 should be considered in accordance with such Government policy as and when her turn comes. The post of the regular Hindi Teacher which will now fall vacant, if is required to be filled up by direct appointment, will be so done only after consideration of the cases of the petitioners and other such persons eligible who may apply/have applied for the said post. 5. The writ petition stands closed in terms of the above directions.