Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 594 (GAU)

Krishna Kanta Borah v. State of Assam

2008-08-11

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The disquieting feature of the present adjudication is the identicalness of the Petitioner and the cause of action in both the proceedings. The Petitioners are the one and the same person and the pleaded facts and the reliefs prayed for are strikingly similar. 2. I have heard Ms. K. Devi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 1793/2008. None appeared for him in WP(C) No. 2348/2008. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has also ten heard. 3. The Petitioner in WP(C) No. 1793/2008 has averred that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Pavakati Kacharigaon L.P. School, Morigaon District, following a resolution to the said effect of the Managing Committee thereof. He having been communicated of the decision by a letter dated 7.8.1990 of the Headmaster of the School, joined the post and has been rendering his services in the said capacity since then till date. The School was provincialised subsequent thereto and though at that time the particulars of the existing teachers were furnished to the departmental authorities, his services were not regularized. However, he continued in the exigencies of the institution. Responding to the plight of teachers similarly placed like the Petitioner who were nomenclatured as dropped teachers, the government of Assam formulated a scheme on 21.6.2007 for consideration of their cases for the regularization of their services. As in spite thereof nothing meaningful was being done, a series of writ petitions were filed before this Court which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 1.9.1993, the lead case being WP(C) No. 1571/98 indicating the parameters to conduct the process in that regard. 4. The State Respondents in compliance of the said decision of this Court took the follow up steps. An advertisement on 6.11.2004 was issued inviting applications from the teachers who were appointed by the Managing Committee of L.P./M.E./M.V./High/Higher Secondary Schools whose names and particulars had been submitted by the respective Deputy Inspector/District Elementary Education Officers at the time of provincialisation of the Schools but whose services could not be regularized. It was followed by another advertisement by the Respondent authorities asking the dropped teachers to appear before the screening committee which he could not for his failing health. 5. It was followed by another advertisement by the Respondent authorities asking the dropped teachers to appear before the screening committee which he could not for his failing health. 5. In WP(C) No. 2348/2008, the Petitioner while claiming himself to be an Assistant Teacher of the aforementioned School being appointed as such w.e.f. 6.8.1990 in terms of the decision of the Managing Committee thereof reiterated the fact of non-regularization of his services following the provincialisation of the institution. According to him, he thereafter approached this Court with WP(C) No. 546/2002 which was disposed of on 5.3.2003 directing the Respondents to consider his name along with the other writ Petitioners therein and to pass appropriate orders in terms of the scheme relevant to the issue. The Petitioner has asserted that following some official exchanges thereafter, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Morigaon, submitted a detailed report to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide his letter dated 18.4.2008 forwarding therewith a list containing the names and particulars of dropped teachers of provincialised L.P. Schools of the said districts. The Petitioner's grievance is that though his name appeared in the said list in the district wise seniority list of dropped teachers of provincialised L.P. Schools that was published, the name of Respondent No. 4 was included thereafter omitting his. The Petitioner has questioned the validity of the insertion of the name of lead case Respondent No. 4 in his place contending that the said Respondent had never been a teacher of the Pavakati Kachrigoan L.P. School nor is at present a member of the teaching staff thereof. 6. Whereas in WP(C) No. 1793/2008, the Petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ to restrain the Respondent authorities from filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers in vacancies in the L.P. Schools without first regularizing his services, in WP(C) No. 2348/2008, he has sought for a direction to delete the name of the Respondent No. 4 from the district wise seniority list of the dropped teachers of provincialised L.P. Schools of Morigaon and to include his name in her place. No affidavit in opposition has been filed by the Respondents. 7. The pleaded facts as observed hereinabove evidently relate to the same issue namely non-regularization of the Petitioner's services as a dropped teacher of Pavakati Kacharigaon L.P. School. No affidavit in opposition has been filed by the Respondents. 7. The pleaded facts as observed hereinabove evidently relate to the same issue namely non-regularization of the Petitioner's services as a dropped teacher of Pavakati Kacharigaon L.P. School. The Petitioners in both the proceedings are one and same person, a fact which the records clearly demonstrate and admitted as well by Ms. K. Devi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 1793/2008. The reliefs prayed for are in essence the same. The first petition has been filed on 8.5.2008 and the second on 4.6.2008 within a time lag of one month. His learned Counsel in WP(C) No. 2348/08 is not available to explain the reason for1 the institution of the second proceeding though his name appeared in the cause list for the day. There is no reference of the first writ petition in WP(C) No. 2348/2008 and, therefore, a deliberate suppression of the fact of institution thereof is obvious. It is, thus, manifest that the Petitioner after filing the first petition and being aware of the pendency thereof instituted the second proceeding on the same facts for the same relief through a different Counsel. Though it is difficult for this Court to determine as to whether his learned Counsel in the second writ petition had been apprised of the institution of the first proceeding or not there is no manner of doubt to conclude that the Petitioner's second venture1 has neither been fair nor bona fide, thus, disentitling him to any consideration of his case in the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. He has apparently not approached this Court with clean hands and has with held material facts. The petitions are liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Ordered accordingly. 8. The chapter could have been closed on the above note. However, as the episode has the potential of undermining the systemic discipline and the credibility of the institution, I feel impelled to pass consequential orders. The conduct of the Petitioner as noticed hereinabove has been grossly in-disciplined and delinquent which, if had gone unnoticed might have resulted in conflicting judicial decisions. However, as the episode has the potential of undermining the systemic discipline and the credibility of the institution, I feel impelled to pass consequential orders. The conduct of the Petitioner as noticed hereinabove has been grossly in-disciplined and delinquent which, if had gone unnoticed might have resulted in conflicting judicial decisions. His speculative exploits with the justice dispensing system by resorting to multiple proceedings to chance a favourable order even at the cost of the institution can by no means be glossed over as a trifle lest it would erode-the confidence of the public in the establishment. Such deliberately cavalier, nonchalant and contumacious, contrivances ought to be firmly quelled. That the Petitioner being a teacher and, therefore, the supposed guardian and mentor of the moral and intellectual character of his students/pupils has indulged in such an irresponsible and condemnable conduct is painfully appalling. In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner by his conduct and actions has not only sought to belittle the rule of Law but also has attempted to interfere with the course of administration of justice. He, therefore, in my estimate is prima facie guilty of contempt of this Court as comprehended under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a suo motu contempt proceeding ought to be initiated against the Petitioner. The Registry would take necessary steps in this regard.