Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 156 (GAU)

Usha Rani Singha v. State of Assam

2010-03-02

AMITAVA ROY

body2010
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The tussle is with regard to the post of Head Teacher of 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School ('the School') in the district of Cachar, Silchar. The writ petitions portray the rival challenges to the orders passed by the departmental authorities centering around the said office. 2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 5803/2009 and 6861/2004 and Mr. A. Rasid, learned Counsel in WP(C) No. 689/2005. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has been heard for the official Respondents. 3. For the sake of convenience and identification Smt. Usha Rani Singha [Petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 5803/2009 and 6861/2004] would be referred to as the Petitioner and Mr. Moloya Singha [Petitioner in WP(C) No. 689/2005] as the Respondent. 4. The genesis of the controversy is traceable to the order dated 1.7.2003 of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Sonai, Cachar transferring the Respondent who at the relevant time was Head Teacher of 456 Purba Ichapar L.P. School to 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School in the same capacity. At that point of time, the Petitioner claims to be the Incharge of the said Office. This order was stayed on the very next day, i.e., on 2.7.2003 passed by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar only to be revived by the same authority on 21.7.2003. According to the Petitioner, this arrangement was comprehended to be unjustified in view of the student teacher ratio of the school as is sought to be conveyed by the letter dated 5.8.2003 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar addressed to the Block Elementary Education Officer, Sonai, Cachar. Soon thereafter, the order dated 16.8.2003 was passed by the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar posting the Respondent as Head Teacher at 1505, Jagannath Puspa Devi L.P. School in modification of the parent order of transfer dated 1.7.2003. The Respondent was brought back to his original school at 456 Purba Ichapar L.P. School as Head Teacher by the order dated 9.12.2003 of the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar and was thereby adjusted temporarily against 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School in the same capacity seeking thereby to restore the first order dated 1.7.2003. The Respondent was brought back to his original school at 456 Purba Ichapar L.P. School as Head Teacher by the order dated 9.12.2003 of the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar and was thereby adjusted temporarily against 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School in the same capacity seeking thereby to restore the first order dated 1.7.2003. By an order dated 3.3.2004 subsequent thereto passed by the same authority, this arrangement was affirmed and Respondent was thereby allowed to work as Head Teacher of 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School until further order(s). This order was assailed by the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 6861/2004, the writ petition to that effect having been filed on 9.9.2004. 5. On an application for keeping in abeyance the order dated 3.3.2004 filed by the Petitioner on 14.12.2004 (registered as Misc. Case No. 3518/2004), this Court on 15.12.2004 issued the following operative direction -"in the meantime, if the applicant/writ Petitioner is holding the post of Head Mistress of 124 Gobinda L.P. School, she shall not be disturbed." This interim direction was issued responding to the Petitioner's prayer for allowing her to continue to hold the post of Head Mistress of that school. 6. In deference to the above order, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar having passed the order dated 1.1.2005 transferring and posting the Respondent to 1367 Kumari Singh Manupuri L.P. School as Head Teacher he impugned the same in WP(C) No. 689/2005 claiming inter alia that he had been serving as Head Teacher of 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School on and from 3.3.2004. This Court by taking note of his assertion as above, by the order dated 4.2.2005 observed that if he had been serving as the Head Teacher of the said School, the impugned order dated 1.1.2005 would not be given effect to "until or unless the order dated 15.12.2004 is clarified/modified". 7. The Petitioner is before this Court with WP(C) No. 5803/2009 with the complaint that in spite of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 3518/2004 and the succeeding departmental writs, the Respondent has not yet formally handed over the charge of the office of the Head Teacher of 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School to her. Special emphasis has been laid on the letter dated 23.10.2008 of the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar, Silchar requiring the Respondent to do so pursuant to the direction of this Court issued in WP(C) No. 6861/2004. Special emphasis has been laid on the letter dated 23.10.2008 of the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar, Silchar requiring the Respondent to do so pursuant to the direction of this Court issued in WP(C) No. 6861/2004. Though the Petitioner and the Respondent as above, have exchanged additional pleadings those project, in substance, the above stands and as such those are not separately traversed. 8. The State Respondents, though have not filed their counter, have posted Mr. Goswami with written instructions. The official correspondences accompanying the same, in essence, endorse the order dated 3.3.2004 allowing the Respondent to work at 124 Gobinda Nagar L.P. School in view of the overwhelming demand of the parents and the guardians of the wards of the said institution which they construed to be in public interest justifying administrative primatur. The departmental authorities, in particular have sought to rely in this regard on a report submitted by the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar on 24.9.2004 to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar. 9. Mr. Roy Choudhury, has argued that the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar being the author of the order impugned, his report being expectedly partisan ought to be left out of consideration in deciding on the validity or otherwise thereof. The very fact that a series of orders pertaining to the transfer of the Respondent vis-a-vis the School incompatible with each other, were passed before the impugned order, makes it apparent that his posting thereat was neither in administrative exigency nor in public interest and is, therefore, liable to be interfered with by this Court, he urged. The learned Counsel argued with reference to the letter dated 23.10.2008 of the District Elementary Education Officer Cachar, Silchar [Annexure L to WP(C) No. 5803/2009] requiring the Respondent to hand over the charge of the Office of the Head Teacher of the School to her that the contents thereof totally bely, the plea of purported welfare of the said institution and its pupils by his continuance thereat as this sought to be represented by the report of the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar. 10. Mr. Rasid, while endorsing the above stand of the State Respondents, has argued that as meanwhile the Respondent has submitted an adequate reply to the allegations contained in the letter dated 23.10.2008 [Annexure L to the WP(C) No. 5803/2009], the Petitioner's challenge to the order dated 3.3.2004 is without substance. 10. Mr. Rasid, while endorsing the above stand of the State Respondents, has argued that as meanwhile the Respondent has submitted an adequate reply to the allegations contained in the letter dated 23.10.2008 [Annexure L to the WP(C) No. 5803/2009], the Petitioner's challenge to the order dated 3.3.2004 is without substance. As admittedly the Respondent was in-charge of the Office of the Head Teacher of the School on 15.12.2004, in terms of the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 689/2005 as well she should be allowed to continue thereat. 11. The compositing pleadings and the stand on behalf of the parties have been duly assessed. A conjoint reading of the orders dated 15.12.2004 and 4.2.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 6861/2004 and WP(C) No. 689/2005 evince the dominant intention of this Court to maintain status quo with regard to the incumbency in the office of the Head Teacher of the School, as on 15.12.2004. Noticeably, the challenge of the Petitioner in the WP(C) No. 6861/2004 had been against the order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar permitting the Respondent to work as Head Teacher of the School. The genesis of this order is traceable to the one dated 1.7.2003 by the same authority transferring him to the said institution. Though, in between several orders were passed and by his communication dated 5.8.2003, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar had expressed some reservation with regard to the posting of the Respondent in that School on the grounds as mentioned therein, the State Respondents, as the written instructions would reveal, have eventually ratified the arrangement effected by the impugned order. 12. Though the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 6861/2004 had contended to be in-charge of the office involved at the point of time when the impugned order dated 3.3.2004 had been passed, the Respondent in WP(C) No. 689/2005 asserted to be functioning as the Head Teacher of the School pursuant thereto from immediately thereafter. The order dated 1.1.2005 impugned therein, transferred the Respondent from the School to 1367 Kumari Singh Manipuri L.P. School. The letter dated 23.10.2008 [Annexure L to the WP(C) No. 5803/2009], however, in clear terms required the Respondent to hand over charge to the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 6861/2004. The order dated 1.1.2005 impugned therein, transferred the Respondent from the School to 1367 Kumari Singh Manipuri L.P. School. The letter dated 23.10.2008 [Annexure L to the WP(C) No. 5803/2009], however, in clear terms required the Respondent to hand over charge to the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 6861/2004. On a cumulative considerations of all above, it is, therefore, rational to conclude that on 15.12.2004, the Respondent had been functioning as the Head Teacher of the School and was, thus, entitled to continue as such. His position thereat stood consolidated by the order dated 4.2.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 689/2005 permitting him to continue in the said School till the order dated 15.12.2004 was clarified. In view of the determination that on 15.12.2004 it was the Respondent who was holding the office of the Head Teacher of the School, subject to the ascertainment of the validity or otherwise of the order dated 3.3.2004, his continuance in the said School cannot be faulted with. This is, more particularly, as the order dated 1.1.2005 transferring him out of the School was pursuant to an order dated 15.12.2004 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6861/2004. In the face of the order dated 4.2.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 689/2005 thereafter the one dated 1.1.2005 is, however, of no consequence for the present. 13. A perusal of the official records demonstrates that the order dated 3.3.2004 had been passed in response to a noticeable unanimous demand by the parents, guardians and the local inhabitants to retain the Respondent No. 4 in the School for the all round welfare thereof and the students. The report of the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar referred to hereinabove, also confirm this. In the face of such demonstrable facts, which portray a consensus of the inhabitants of the locality of the School, as well as the parents and guardians of the pupils thereof, the reservation expressed on behalf of the Petitioner to the report of the Block Elementary Education Officer Sonai, Cachar does not appear to be convincing. The order dated 3.3.2004, notwithstanding the fact that it was preceded by several orders. The order dated 3.3.2004, notwithstanding the fact that it was preceded by several orders. One militating against the other, in view of the dominant consideration of the welfare of the institution and the students as projected by the mounting demands of the parents, guardians and the public at large cannot be impeached as illegal, arbitrary and/or vitiated by bias or mala fide. 14. Be that as it may, it is noticeable that meanwhile the Respondent has been posted for nearly six years in the School and more importantly certain allegations have been brought against him by the letter/order dated 23.10.2008 of the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar, Silchar. Though, the Respondent on 29.10.2008 has submitted his reply to the imputations, it is submitted at the Bar that no final decision has yet been taken in connection therewith. 15. In the above factual premise, these petitions are closed with a direction to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Guwahati to cause immediate steps for recording an early decision on the charges levelled against the Respondent in the order/letter dated 23.10.2008 as referred to hereinabove and determine as to whether his further retention in the School would be to its benefit and welfare of its students in general. It is made clear that this observation of the court in the context of the above-noted justification for which he, as the official records disclose, had been permitted to function as a Head Teacher of the School. However, the authority entrusted with the responsibility of taking a decision as required would act independent of the said observation in his discretion, strictly in accordance with law. WP(C) No. 5803/2009 is, therefore, disposed of in this term. WP(C) No. 689/2005 is allowed and WP(C) No. 6861/2004 is rejected. No costs.