Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 825 (GAU)

khabir Uddin Sk. v. State of Assam and Ors.

2014-08-29

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2014
1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2,4,5 and 6 and Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Additional) at Dalshingher Alga Pt.-II Keshmotia M.E. School by an order dated 20.6.1998 and he had joined on 21.6.1998. The order of appointment had been provisionally approved by District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) on 1.9.2011. The respondent No. 9 had joined the school, only on 22.5.2008 and, therefore, he is senior to respondent No. 9. However, the District Level Scrutiny Committee, constituted under section 10 of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, for short, the Act, had recommended the respondent No. 9 herein instead of the petitioner and he came to learn about this on 6.3.2014. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam on 19.3.2014 and as no step has been taken by the Director, the petitioner approached this court by way of this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Mondal has made a limited submission to the effect that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam should be directed to be disposed of within a specific time-frame. Mr. Mondal submits that if the name is not recommended by the District Level Scrutiny Committee, the Director has got no authority to rectify the defect, even if, any wrong is committed by the District Level Scrutiny -Committee. 5. On a specific query, raised by the court, Mr. Mondal submits that his case was considered by the District Level Scrutiny Committee but not recommended. 6. Mr. Choudhury, on the other hand, submits that under section 10 of the Act, the Director is obliged to make further enquiry to verify the list of eligible teachers forwarded by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. It is also, submitted by him that there is no provision for appeal at this stage and that the petition is pre-mature. 7. Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 10 of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under : "10. It is also, submitted by him that there is no provision for appeal at this stage and that the petition is pre-mature. 7. Sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 10 of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under : "10. District Scrutiny Committee.- (1) There shall be one District Scrutiny Committee in each district separately for Elementary, Secondary and for Higher Education to scrutinize service records and other related issues of the serving teachers and staff of Venture Educational Institutions pertaining to provincialisation of their services. (2) The Deputy Commissioner of the District, by an order, shall constitute the District Scrutiny Committee for the respective district under preceding sub- 1 section. (3) The District Committee shall first scrutinize and prepare a list of all Venture Educational Institutions within the district, which are eligible in terms of the provisions of this Act and shall thereafter proceed to scrutinize and verify the service records of all the serving employees, who are eligible or would become eligible for being considered for provincialisation of their services. (4) The District Scrutiny Committee shall forward the verified list of eligible teachers school-wise in accordance with the number of posts specified in fee Schedule appended to this Act, to the concerned Director who shall, after making such further scrutiny as may be required, shall forward the same to the concerned Department of the State Government for consideration and for issuing Notification in respect of the eligible instructions and employees eligible for getting their services provincialised. (5) The District Scrutiny Committee shall have the powers to inspect all documents and records produced before if and call for such further records and documents as may be required for the purpose of causing verification and scrutiny and examine witnesses for the purpose, if considered necessary and while doing so it shall have the powers of a civil court for the purpose of compelling attendance of persons and production of documents." 8. A perusal of the aforesaid provision goes to show that the District Level Scrutiny Committee is to scrutinize and verify the service record of all the employees, who are eligible or would become eligible for being considered for the provincialisation of their services and that the District Level Scrutiny Committee shall have to forward the verified list of eligible teachers school-wise in accordance with the number of posts specified in the schedule appended to the Act to the concerned Director, who shall, after making such scrutiny as may be required, send to the concerned department of the Government of Assam for consideration and for issuing notifications in respect to the eligible schools and employees eligible for getting their services provincialised. It, thus, mandates that the Director has to apply his mind to the list forwarded by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. 9. I am not impressed by Mr. Mondal's submission that the Director will have no authority to rectify the defect, if any, in the list forwarded by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. If there is a provision in the Act for further enquiry by the Director, it will be wrong to hold that if the Director finds somebody has been wrongly recommended or somebody has wrongly been not recommended he will be powerless to remedy the situation. If this argument is accepted, further scrutiny as contemplated under the Act will be rendered nugatory and otiose. The scheme of the Act visualizes scrutiny at various levels: 10. On the recommendation of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, no right accrues to any individual. No finality is attached to such recommendations. It is only the beginning of the process of provincialisation. The Director will necessarily have to consider as to whether the recommendation of the District Level Scrutiny Committee is in accordance with law. 11. The Act has not provided for any appeal after the District Level Scrutiny Committee has forwarded the list to the Director. Therefore, I am not inclined to pass any order directing the Director to dispose of me appeal filed by the petitioner. 11. The Act has not provided for any appeal after the District Level Scrutiny Committee has forwarded the list to the Director. Therefore, I am not inclined to pass any order directing the Director to dispose of me appeal filed by the petitioner. However, since a specific grievance has been raised by the petitioner, it is expected that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam will take note of the grievances at the time of his scrutiny of the list forwarded by the District Level Scrutiny Committee, before sending the list for consideration of the concerned Department of the State. 12. If grievances of the petitioner persists, it will always be open to the petitioner to ventilate his grievances at the appropriate time. 13. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.