Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 459 (GAU)

Jakir Hussain Laskar v. State of Assam & 7 Ors.

2016-05-24

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 6.1.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 3701/2013. 2. The facts in brief are these. On 30.4.2003, appellant was appointed as Persian Assistant Teacher in Sahidul Alam Choudhury Model Girls High School (for short, ‘the school’) and since then he is working in that school. The school is exclusively for girl students. Therefore, having regard to the necessity and guidelines issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the Managing Committee of the school passed a resolution on 23.7.2003 to reserve one post of Headmaster or Assistant Headmaster for woman to ensure that interest of girl students are well protected. On 10.06.2006, respondent No. 7, Zerin Akhtar Laskar (woman) was appointed as Persian Teacher in the school against a non-sanctioned post on condition that she must become graduate within five years. Respondent No. 7 fulfilled the condition by completing her graduation in the year 2009. Having done this, the services of respondent No. 7 was converted and continued as regular Assistant Teacher in the school which was also approved by the Inspector of Schools. 3. On 23.12.2009, the Managing Committee passed a resolution to promote respondent No. 7 as Assistant Headmistress of the school. This resolution was also approved by the Inspector of Schools on 29.12.2009. In the result, respondent No. 7 was promoted as Assistant Headmistress of the school. 4. The Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 came into force with effect from 5.9.2011. After the commencement of Act, the State Government vide letter dated 30.5.2013 created as many as 159 posts of teaching and non-teaching staff for Hailakandi District. And out of these posts, 16 posts were allotted to the school in question. The matter of provincialisation of the staff of school was then placed before the District Scrutiny Committee which was approved. After approval, the matter was next placed before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. The Director provincialised services of teaching staff as provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2011. The services of respondent No. 7 was provincialised as Assistant Headmistress as per schedule of the Act. 5. Since the services of appellant could not be provincialised as Assistant Teacher, he filed WP(C) No. 3701/2013 challenging provincialisation of respondent No. 7 on the post of Assistant Headmistress. The services of respondent No. 7 was provincialised as Assistant Headmistress as per schedule of the Act. 5. Since the services of appellant could not be provincialised as Assistant Teacher, he filed WP(C) No. 3701/2013 challenging provincialisation of respondent No. 7 on the post of Assistant Headmistress. But the learned Single Judge disagreed with the appellant and by the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition on two grounds—firstly, that he did not challenge the order of provincialisation of respondent No. 7 and secondly, he had no locus standi to question the provincialisation of respondent No. 7 on the post of Assistant Headmistress. 6. As regards the first ground of dismissal, we respectfully disagree with the learned Single Judge because appellant in fact did challenge the order of provincialisation of respondent No. 7. But even then, since appellant is an Assistant Teacher and respondent No. 7 is an Assistant Headmistress and the latter has been provincialised on that post in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, no relief can be granted to him. The post of Assistant Teacher is in different category from the post of Assistant Headmistress and under Section 4 of the Act, services of the teaching staff can be provincialised only on the category of post he/ she is working. Also, respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of Assistant Headmistress much prior to coming into force of the Act and therefore, manipulation in the matter as alleged by the appellant is difficult to believe. 7. The learned Single Judge has also observed in the order that there are at least four Assistant Teachers who are senior to appellant in the school. 8. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.