Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 76 (GAU)

Md. Nayebur Rahman v. State of Assam

2015-01-28

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) This Review petition is filed for segregation of the WP(C) No.1242/2010, which was analogously disposed of on 21.03.2013 with several other cases. 2. Mr. S.K. Medhi, the learned counsel submits that the Review petitioner is not in the same footing as the petitioners in the other cases who were illegally appointed dehors the Rules, by the then D.I. of Schools, Nalbari and where services of these illegal appointees were terminated by the Director, BTC. 3. The Review petitioner contends that he is the founder teacher of the Arnibil Milan L.P. School in Nalbari sub-division and joined the venture school on 01.01.1979. After many years of service, the Government decided to take over 28 venture primary schools w.e.f. 01.01.1995 as was communicated through the Government letter dated 16.11.1991. The Arnibil Milan L.P. School was one of those 28 selected schools, which was the beneficiary of the Government decision. 4. The then Director of Elementary Education, Assam, through the order dated 15.03.1995 (Annexure-1) specified the names of the founder teachers in those 28 venture schools and consequently the petitioner’s name as the founder teacher of the Arnibil Milan L.P. School was included amongst the shortlisted primary schools, taken over by the Government as mentioned in the schedule to the DEE’s order dated 15.03.1995. For the record, the DEE then was Mr. J.C. Goswami. 5. The officials of the Education Department are represented by Mr. R.M. Deka, the standing counsel Education Department. The BTC authorities are represented by Mr. M. Khataniar, the standing counsel. 6. After considering the projection made by the Review petitioner and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner’s claim in the WP(C) No.1242/2010 was on a different footing and therefore his case should not have been included in the bunch of cases taken up for analogous hearing. But unfortunately the distinguishing facts were not brought to the Court’s notice since no representation was made on behalf of the writ petitioner during the analogous hearing by the writ Court. 7. In view of above, this Review petition is allowed. Consequently the judgment dated 21.03.2013 in the WP(C) No.1242/2010 stands recalled. The Registry is accordingly directed to restore the WP(C) No.1242/2010 and post the same before the writ Court in due turn. It is ordered accordingly.