Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 525 (GAU)

Bigum Ngulom v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2003-11-27

I.A.ANSARI

body2003
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are office bearers of Arunachal School Education Officers' Association, have approached this Court seeking, inter alia, issuance of appropriate writ/writs commanding the State respondents in repatriate respondents No. 6 to his parent Directorate of Higher Technical Education and to exclude the name of the respondent No. 6 from the inter se seniority list of the officer's of the Directorate of School Education. 2. The case of the petitioners may, in brief, be stated as follows : (i) The petitioner No. 1 is the President and petitioner No. 2 is the General Secretary of Arunachal School Education Officers' Association (hereinafter referred to as "the said Association"). Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are working as Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Itanagar, and Govt. Higher Secondary School, Doimukh, respectively and both of them represent the said Association. Respondent No. 6 was first appointed as a Lecturer in Govt. College, Arunachal Pradesh, vide order, dated 10.2.1986, issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Till 24.1.1996, the Primary, Elementary, Secondary, Higher Secondary, College and Technical Education was completely under the Director of Public Instruction (DPI). A separate Directorate for Higher and Technical Education was created by the Government vide order, dated 24.01.1996. By Notification, dated 19.12.1983, the Government framed Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Director of Public Instruction (ADPI), District Education Sikshak Bhawan (BSB), etc., the Rules being called "the Recruitment Rules, 1983 to (Central Civil Service Group-A) Posts". Under these Rules, 100% of the posts of Assistant Director of Public Instruction, District Education Officers and Principal BSB are by promotion from the cadre of Head Master/Vice-Principal. By Notification, dated 19.12.1983, the Government framed the Recruitment Rule for the post of Head Master, Secondary School, Vice-Principal, Higher Secondary School, etc., the Rules being called "the Recruitment Rules, 1983 to (Central Civil Service Group-B) Posts". Under those Rules, 75% of the posts of (1) Head Master, Secondary School, (2) Vice-Principal, Higher Secondary School, are by promotion from Junior Teachers/ Assistant Head Master/Lecture, BSB and Senior Teachers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the cadre of Junior Teachers and 25% from direct recruit from Senior Teachers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the cadre of Senior Teachers. By Notification, dated 19.12.1983, the Government framed the Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director of Public Instruction (Central Civil Service Group-'A'), the Rules being called "the Recruitment Rules, 1983 to (Central Civil Service Group-A) Posts". Under these Rules, 75% of the posts of Deputy Director of Public Instruction are by promotion from the posts of Assistant Director of Public Instructions/District Education Officers/Principal, BSB and 25% by deputation from NCERT/CBSE, failing which by direct recruitment or by promotion, on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, having minimum 5 (five) years of experience. By the Notification, dated 19.12.1983, the Government framed the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Deputy Director of Public Instruction (College Education) (Central Civil Service Group-'A') in the Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. Under these Rules, 100% of the posts of Deputy Director of Public Instructions, College Education, are by transfer from the lecturers of Govt. Colleges, on merit-cum-seniority basis, having minimum 5 (five) years of service in Degree Teaching. (ii) The members of the said Association are Junior Teachers. The Respondent No. 6, as a Lecturer of Govt. College Itanagar, was, vide order, dated 19.9.1991, adjusted against the post of Assistant Director of Public Instruction (OBB) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and he was allowed to work as Officer-on-Special Duty (OSD) in his own scale of pay with effect from the date he would report for duty. The respondent No. 6 was, again, reverted to his original post of Lecturer, Govt. College, Itanagar, with effect from the same date, i.e., 19.9.1991. (iii) The Government, however, vide order, dated 15.1.1992, cancelled the reversion order of the respondent No. 6 and allowed him to work as Officer-on-Special Duty (OSD) in the DPI's office, at Naharlagun, against the vacant post of ADPI with effect from 1.1.1992 until further orders. All these appointments, postings and transfers of the respondent No. 6 were done prior to the creation and bifurcation of the separate Directorate for High and Technical Education vide order, dated 24.1.1996. As per the relevant Recruitment Rules, the post of Deputy Director of Public Instructions (College Education) is to be filled up by transfer from the Lecturers, Govt. Colleges, on merit-cum-seniority basis. Under these recruitment rules, there is no provision for the post of Assistant Director of Public Instruction in the College Education. As per the relevant Recruitment Rules, the post of Deputy Director of Public Instructions (College Education) is to be filled up by transfer from the Lecturers, Govt. Colleges, on merit-cum-seniority basis. Under these recruitment rules, there is no provision for the post of Assistant Director of Public Instruction in the College Education. Thus, appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Assistant Director of Public Instruction and adjusting him as Officer-on-Special Duty itself was de hors the Rules. After the bifurcation of Education Department into the Directorate of Higher and Technical Education and the Directorate of School Education in the year 1996, adjustment of the respondent No. 6 in the Directorate of School Education is in violation of the relevant Recruitment Rules. But repeated submission of representations by the petitioners could not bring any solution and, hence, this writ petition. 3. The respondents have contested the case, the case of the respondents being to the effect, inter alia, that the respondent No. 6 stood absorbed in the post of Assistant Director in the Directorate of Education vide notification, dated 25.5.1995, issued by the Secretary, Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, with effect from 18.12.1994. Since the absorption took place before the bifurcation of the Department of Education into the Directorate of Higher and Technical Education and the Directorate of School Education, the respondent No. 6 already stood absorbed in the Directorate of School Education. The petitioners or their Association never raised any objection at the time, when the respondent No. 6 was so absorbed and they raised their objection only, in the year 2001, by their representation, dated 9.7.2001. The absorption of the respondent No. 6 was as a result of the power of relaxation exercised by the Governor under the relevant Recruitment Rules and since the petitioners did not raise any objection thereto for such a long time, they cannot, now, upset the settled issue of the absorption of respondent No. 6 in the Directorate of School Education. The absorption of the respondent No. 6 in the Directorate of School Education has not in any way affected the service career of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the said absorption of the respondent No. 6 at such belated stage. 4. I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. 4. I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. I have also heard Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 5. Since this writ petition has been resisted at its very threshold by the respondents on the question of its maintainability, it is imperative for this Court to determine as to whether the petitioners have locus standi to approach this Court with help of the present writ petition seeking the reliefs, as indicated hereinabove. 6. While dealing with the above aspect of the matter, it is pertinent to note that the said Association is not a registered Association. There is nothing in the writ petition to indicate that the said Association has specifically empowered the petitioners to file such a writ petition. This apart, for a person to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the person concerned must be an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person, within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution, is one, whose fundamental or legal rights have been infringed. Not a whisper is there in the writ petition to indicate that any of the fundamental or legal rights of the said Association have been infringed by the impugned absorption of the respondent No. 6 nor is there anything in the writ petition indicating that the personal right, legal or fundamental, of the petitioners have been infringed by the said absorption. To a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have agitated the question of absorption of the respondent No. 6 on account of the fact that all the members of the said Association have a common cause. For a common cause, the kind of the writ petition, which has been filed, cannot be maintained. To a further query made by this Court, Mr. T. Son could not also say that the petitioners would gain any promotion or higher scale of pay if the absorption of the respondent No. 6 is set aside by this Court. Situated thus, it is clear that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons and since they are not aggrieved persons, they cannot maintain this writ petition. 7. T. Son could not also say that the petitioners would gain any promotion or higher scale of pay if the absorption of the respondent No. 6 is set aside by this Court. Situated thus, it is clear that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons and since they are not aggrieved persons, they cannot maintain this writ petition. 7. In view of the fact that I have held that the present writ petition is not maintainable, the other questions on which the writ petition has been resisted by the respondents are not required to be gone into. 8. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. 9. Considering, however the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Writ petition dismissed