Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 974 (GAU)

Binod Kumar v. State of Assam

2015-08-06

T.VAIPHEI

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER T. Vaiphei, J. - In this writ petition, the two petitioners, who are dropped teachers, are seeking the intervention of this Court for directing the respondent authorities to provincialize their services in the posts of Assistant Teacher of M.E. Schools. 2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, as pleaded by the petitioners, may be briefly noticed at the outset. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teachers of Thailoo Bagan M.E. School on 1.1.1980 by the Managing Committee of the school while the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Jayashree Shramik M.E. School on 1.4.1984 by the Managing Committee of the school. They have been rendering their services in their respective schools till now. In due course, their schools came to be recognised by the respondent authorities, However, when the services of the teaching and non-teaching staffs were provincialized on 16.11.1991, the names of the petitioners were left out: only the services of four teachers and one Grade-IV came to be regularised. The respondent authorities subsequently took up the question of provincialization of the services of dropped teachers of different schools of Assam. As instructed, the respondent No. 3 (District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar) vide his letter dated 30.3.2001 forwarded the names of genuinely dropped and honorary teachers including the names of the petitioners in the prescribed manner by indicating that their names were approved from his end. However, no further action was taken by the respondent authorities for quite sometime. The respondent No. 3 again by his letter dated 8.2.2005 forwarded the list of dropped teachers including the names of the petitioners received by him from the Headmasters to the respondent No. 2. 3. A Screening Committee was thereafter constituted for considering the provincialisation of the services of the dropped teachers. The Headmaster of their school, according to the petitioners, appeared before the Screening Committee on 27.11.2005 and submitted the necessary papers, but nothing happened even thereafter. In the meantime, the Block Elementary Education Officer, Rajabazar (respondent 4) by his letter dated 8.9.2011 forwarded the joint application of the petitioners and one other person, with whom we are not presently concerned, to the respondent No. 2 indicating therein that one Dilip Kumar Paul was provincialized on 7.1.1994 and recommended the provincialisation of the services of the petitioners along with one other person. The respondent No. 3 apparently by his letter dated 19.11.2011 forwarded the list of dropped teachers including the names of the petitioners to the respondent No. 2 for necessary action, but no tangible result has been taken ti 11 now. The subsequent representations made by the petitioners to the respondent authorities also did not evoke any positive response. It is contended by the petitioners that the policy decision taken by the respondent authorities on 13.1.2003 as modified by this Court in its judgment in Jiban Chandra Deka & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2008 (3) GLT 229 for constituting a Committee for considering the cases of dropped teachers has not been followed in their cases, which prompted them to file this writ petition. 4. The State-respondents contested the writ petition. The case of the State-respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition and their additional affidavit filed through the respondent No. 2 is that there is no merit in the writ petition. According to the answering respondent, the cases of the petitioners were placed before the High Power Committee in their meeting and were examined by them. During examination by the High Power Committee, though they found that the particulars in respect of the petitioners were forwarded by the concerned District authority, the sanction orders were not found whereupon the claim of the petitioners as dropped teachers of Jayshree Shramik M.E. School, Thailoo T.E. Cachar were rejected. According to the answering respondents, the petitioners were appointed as honorary teachers by the Managing Committee without sanctioned posts. Ai the time of provincialisation of the school, the services of the employees of the school as permissible under the rules had already been provincialized. The authorised strength of the school under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 was (i) One Head Teacher; (ii) Two Assistant Teachers; (iii) One Classical Teacher (Hindi) and (iv) One Grade IV staff: the petitioners could not be accommodated against the said three teaching posts of the school. The answering respondent, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioners thereafter filed their re-ply-affidavit and assert that the respondent No. 2 misconceived the concept of venture school, which the school was, before the provincialisation of the services of its employees. The answering respondent, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioners thereafter filed their re-ply-affidavit and assert that the respondent No. 2 misconceived the concept of venture school, which the school was, before the provincialisation of the services of its employees. In a venture school, permission was first granted and then the school receives recognition where after it receives financial assistance and is usually followed by provincialisation if it is found eligible for the provincialisation. Thus, the question of sanction order for the appointment of the petitioners in a venture school from the Government does not arise. In the instant case, the petitioners were duly appointed by the Managing Committee, which has the power to do so, and their appointments were subsequently approved by the concerned District Elementary Education Officer. The names of the petitioners were duly reflected in the inspection report dated 1.4.1992. In fact, the name of the petitioner No. 2 was sent for provincialisation in the year 1995. None of the teachers whose services were provincialized had been working in any sanctioned posts: their services were approved only on 6.6.1992 and provincializsation of their services were done on 11.6.1992 i.e. just before 5 days. Moreover, the service of one Dilip Paul, who was appointed latter than the petitioner No. 1, but was appointed on the same date with the petitioner No. 2, got his service provincialized on 17.1.1994 even though his post was not a sanctioned post. It is, therefore, submitted that this is a fit case for fresh consideration by the High Power Committee as in WP(C) No. 2917/13. 6. I have gone through the minutes of the meeting of the High Power Committee (HPC) on dropped teachers held on 30.8.2006, which is placed before me by the learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, and examination of the said minutes wall indicate that the cases of the petitioners were also considered by the Committee and were rejected on the grounds that the sanction orders and post approval orders of their appointments were not found and that their names were not found in the detail particulars of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. It must be recalled that the petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in not provincializing their services along with their colleagues in the year 1992. Yet, they never filed any writ petition complaining of non-provincialisation of their services. However, their cases as dropped teachers were duly considered by the High Power Committee on 30.8.2006, but, as noted earlier, their cases were rejected by them. Yet, they filed this writ petition only in 2012. Persistence in, or the habit of, pursuing cases year after year cannot be the basis for granting a relief unless a clear case of violation of legal or constitutional rights are made out by the petitioners. The decision of the High Power Committee sought to be upset in this case some six years later should not be lightly interfered with by this Court unless a very satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition is offered by the petitioner. From the time of provincialisation of their colleagues which took place in 1992, more than 20 long years have lapsed. It is now too late in the day for foe petitioners to claim provincialisation of their services like their colleagues, whose services were provincialized in 1992. No useful purpose will be served by referring their cases to the High Power Committee time and again. The practice of making representation after representation to the respondent authorities by litigious employee for a cause having no merit, sometimes through the intervention of this Court, shall have to be put to a stop: this Court should not bombard the executive authorities with orders for their consideration of a cause/causes not worthy of consideration just to keep the hopes of foe petitioners alive. It is a waste of time for the Court and also for the executive authorities who have more than their share of genuine cases to attend to. After the lapse of more than 20 years, it is time for the petitioners to move on and stop knocking at the door of this Court for a stale claim of this nature. 7. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of laches and is, therefore, dismissed, but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.