Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 380 (GAU)

Gopal Kumar Das v. State of Assam & Ors.

2015-03-26

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2015
1. Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. 11. Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Kurua Higher Secondary School on 27.5.1992 (Annexure 3) on the order of the Inspector of Schools, Mangaldoi subject to approval of the School’s Managing Committee. After the Managing Committee approved his appointment, the petitioner filed the WP(C) No. 3145/2002 and this court on 17.5.2002 (Annexure 5) directed consideration of regularization of the petitioner's service. As requisite steps were not taken in due time, the aggrieved petitioner filed the Contempt Case No. 550/2004 but the same was dismissed for default. 3. Subsequently communications were made by the Director of Elementary Education (DEE), Assam with the Government, for regularization of the service but the Government is yet to give concurrence to the proposal of the DEE, Assam. Accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner is once again, before the court. 4. The counsel for the respondents have submitted that the appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee of a provincialised school is dc hors the rule, as the Managing Committee has no authority to appoint any honorary teacher in a provincialised school. 5. The respondents' counsel has further stated that the Government had issued the notification dated 30.6.2004, which is to the following effect: "Despite Government policy decision communicated vide O.M. No. A(I)E. 621/2003/320 dated 21.1.2004, received reports indicate that the district/Sub-divisional level officers have allowed the Honorary teachers to continue in their services. The O.M. under reference conveyed the decision of the High Court that the Honorary teachers have no legal and equitable rights to claim for regularization in service. The Cabinet Sub-committee on Education also decided in its meeting held on 22.8.1003 that the Honorary teachers shall not be regularised in future and should be ensured their discontinuation in attending duties in the schools. You are, therefore hereby asked to ensure that all the Honorary teachers, still continuing in their attendance in the schools should be ordered to discontinuation with immediate effect without formally passing any order of termination or discontinuance. You are, therefore hereby asked to ensure that all the Honorary teachers, still continuing in their attendance in the schools should be ordered to discontinuation with immediate effect without formally passing any order of termination or discontinuance. If somebody allows any Honorary teachers to continue, and if such Honorary teachers claim any remuneration or financial compensation, the concerned officer/ officers shall be personally responsible for such financial liabilities even after retirement.” 6. The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner being appointed on honorary basis, the petitioner has no right to claim regularization or absorption as Assistant teacher in the said school. 7. A perusal of the appointment order dated 27.5.1992 shows that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant teacher on a purely honorary basis till a post was created by the Government. The Managing Committee minutes dated 29.8.1992 also shows that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant teacher by the Inspector of School, Darrang District Circle. 8. Thus, the respondents' contention that the Managing Committee appointed the petitioner is not supported by any document in the respondents' affidavit or in the writ petition. 9. The notification dated 30.6.2004 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department is also taken note of. However, the order dated 17.5.2002 issued by this court in WP(C) No. 3145/2002 has categorically disposed of the said case with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services and pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of the law applicable. 10. In view of the above and considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of by giving a direction to the respondent No. 2, i.e. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Assam to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services and pass appropriate orders as per law. 11. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Assam within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petitioner shall also give a copy of the writ petition along with the certified copy of this order to the respondent No. 2. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.