Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 365 (GAU)

MONUJ KACHARI @ MONUJ SONOWAL v. STATE OF ASSAM

2015-03-25

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2015
Judgment Heard Mr MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr N. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 as well as Mr B Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on the death of his father on 16.12.2009, the writ petitioner had submitted an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. The DLC recommended the name of the petitioner. The petitioner’s case is that after the DLC recommended the name of the petitioner, the SLC had also selected the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher in LP School. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the Minutes of the DLC Meeting held on 27.06.2011(Annexure -6) and specifically the paragraph 23, which is as follows: “23. District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji: The committee has examined the proposals and applications for appointment under companionate ground under the Department of District Elementary Education, Dhemaji. After threadbare discussion and due scrutiny of applications and proposals the name of following applicants are recommend for further consideration of the State level Committee. Sl. No. Name of candidate whose name recommended: No. of vacancies is falling during the year: 1 Sri Manuj Kr. Kachari AT in UP Schools 2. Sri Arup Gogoi AT in UP Schools 3. Sri Pranab Deka Gd. IV 4. Sri Troilukya Buragohain AT in LP Schools 5. Sri Manuj Kr. Sonowal AT in LP Schools(STP) 6. Sri Manuranjan Das AT in LP Schools(SC)” The petitioner’s counsel has thereafter taken me to the Minutes of the SLC meeting dated 01.04.2014 (Snnexure-8) which is to the following effect : “Dhemaji District: The State Level Committee examined the recommendation of the District Level Committee Meeting held on 28.03.2013, 27.06.11, 29.12.09 and observed in the following: i) There are four candidates recommended by DLC for UP School Teachers. But as per vacancy position of 31.12.13 only 2 posts is vacant for appointment on compassionate ground for UP School teachers. The selected candidates for UP School teachers are : 1. Sri Manuj Kr. Kachari Lt. Padma Kachari A.T. UP School 2. Sri Ankur Gogoi Lt.parag Kr.Gogoi A.T. UP School” The petitioner’s counsel has submitted that while the petitioner Sri Manuj Kr. The selected candidates for UP School teachers are : 1. Sri Manuj Kr. Kachari Lt. Padma Kachari A.T. UP School 2. Sri Ankur Gogoi Lt.parag Kr.Gogoi A.T. UP School” The petitioner’s counsel has submitted that while the petitioner Sri Manuj Kr. Kachari and Sri Troilukya Buragohain were selected by DLC meeting Minute dated 27.06.2011, the petitioner has not been selected in the SLC meeting Minute dated 01.04.2014. The petitioner’s counsel has submitted that while Sri Troilukya Buragohain has been selected as Assistant Teacher for LP School, the petitioner has not been given appointment. Thus, the petitioner’s counsel has prayed that now the petitioner should be given appointment order as Assistant Teacher as there is no basis to discriminate against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and tried to impersonate Sri Manoj Kumar Kachari, son of Lt. Padma Kachari. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the cause title of the writ petition and the affidavit shows that the writ petitioner is one Sri Manoj Kumar Sonowal, son of Lt. Hari Prasad Sonowal. The Minutes of the DLC meeting dated 27.06.2011 shows that Sri Manoj Kumar Sonowal, son of Lt. Hari Prasad Sonowal and Sri Manoj Kr. Kachari, son of Lt. Padma Kachari have been recommended for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The Minutes of the SLC meeting dated 01.04.2014 however, shows that the application of Sri Manoj Kumar Sonowal, son of Lt. Hari Prasad Sonowal has been rejected due to lack of vacancy position. The counsel for the respondents have also submitted that the petitioner cannot claim selection for the post of UP School Teacher. The petitioner having applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in LP School, the said selection of Sri Manoj Kumar Kachari, son of Lt. Padma Kachari as Assistant Teacher in UP School is no way relatable to the present petitioner whose name is different and having a different father. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the death certificate (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shows that the father of the petitioner is Lt. Hari Prasad Sonowal and that he cannot claim appointment on the basis of selection of Manoj Kr. Kachari by the SLC. I have heard the learned counsels at length. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the death certificate (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shows that the father of the petitioner is Lt. Hari Prasad Sonowal and that he cannot claim appointment on the basis of selection of Manoj Kr. Kachari by the SLC. I have heard the learned counsels at length. Though the petitioner had tried to make out a case that no appointment order was issued despite the petitioner being selected, on careful perusal of the pleadings, it has come to light that Sri Manoj Kr. Kachari and the petitioner Sri Manuj Kumar Sonowal are two different persons. While the name of Sri Manoj Kr. Kachari is reflected in respect of Dhemaji District at page 32 of the writ petition, the petitioner, Manuj Kumar Sonowal’s name is reflected in page 33 of the writ petition. The petitioner i.e.Sri Manuj Kr Sonowal was initially recommended by the DLC for his appointment under compassionate ground. However, the same was rejected by the SLC due to lack of vacancy position as it appears from its Minute dated 01.04.2014. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in pursuance to the DLC meeting dated 27.06.2011 or to place his case in the next SLC meeting for the purpose of his appointment as Assistant Teacher. A perusal of the writ petition and its annexures shows that in the Dibrugarh University Certificate, the All Assam Tribal Sangha Certificate and the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council Certificate, the name of the petitioner is shown as Manuj Kachari. The cause title of the writ petition shows the petitioner’s name as Manuj Kachari @ Manuj Sonowal. The Permanent Residential Certificate shows the name Manuj Sonowal. The legal heir certificate shows the name Manuj Kr. Sonowal. The application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner shows the name Manuj Sonowal (Kachari). Thus, different names having slight similarity have been shown in the various documents submitted by the petitioner. After perusal of the case record, it is now crystal clear that the petitioner is Sri Manuj Kumar Sonowal and not Sri Manoj Kr. Kachari. This is further fortified from the fact that while petitioner’s candidature has been rejected by the SLC due to lack of vacancy position as Assistant Teacher in LP School, the candidature of Sri Manoj Kr. After perusal of the case record, it is now crystal clear that the petitioner is Sri Manuj Kumar Sonowal and not Sri Manoj Kr. Kachari. This is further fortified from the fact that while petitioner’s candidature has been rejected by the SLC due to lack of vacancy position as Assistant Teacher in LP School, the candidature of Sri Manoj Kr. Kachari has been recommended by the SLC for appointment as Assistant Teacher in UP School. In view of the fact that the SLC meeting Minute dated 01.04.2014 has not been challenged by the writ petitioner, the decision of the SLC taken in its meeting dated 01.04.2014 continues to have force and the said minutes/ decision cannot be subjected to legal scrutiny/ review. The second para of Para 5 of the writ petition shows that the petitioner has correctly recorded the fact that “the SLC has rejected the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of lack of vacancy position”. While the petitioner has made such a submission in the second para of Para 5, the petitioner’s counsel in his argument has given a twist and has not adverted to the said pleadings. In fact, he has tried to mislead this Court on the ground that the writ petitioner is Manuj Kr. Kachari. Though this Court was initially of the view that cost should be imposed upon the petitioner, in view of the pleadings made in the second para of Para 5 of the writ petition, this Court does not feel it proper to impose any cost as a client should not suffer due to the fault of his counsel. As stated above, the petitioner not having challenged the rejection of his application/ proposal for appointment on compassionate ground vide the SLC minutes dated 1.4.2014, this writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.