Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 522 (GAU)

Atikur Rahman v. Abdul Khaleque & 6 Ors.

2016-06-07

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. L. Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & Mr. S. Saikia, learned senior Standing Counsel, Secondary Education for respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. 3. This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 23.5.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed WP(C) No. 2750/2013 of respondent No. 1. 4. Respondent No. 1 is serving as Assistant Teacher (Science) in Farukia Government Aided Madrassa in Lakhimpur district since 16.05.1993 whereas appellant is serving in the same Madrassa as Science Teacher since 04.02.2008. 5. According to Rule 4 of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (in short, ‘Act’), the services of the employees of all eligible Venture Educational Institutions shall be deemed to have been provincialised on the date of coming into force of the Act and they shall become employees of the State Government with effect from that date. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 also provides that provincialisation of the services of the employees shall be on the basis of seniority in the respective category in the concerned educational institution. But, despite respondent No. 1 being much senior to the appellant in the category of Science Teacher, the State Government included the name of appellant in the list of teachers for the purpose of provincialisation. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed WP(C) No. 2750/2013 and the learned Single Judge having regard to the above mentioned sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Act, by the impugned order has directed the State Government to forward his name in place of the name of the appellant for the purpose of provincialisation. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that since he is a Science Graduate with combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and the Madrassa needed a teacher with Mathematics, his name was rightly recommended for provincialisation. According to the appellant, although respondent No. 1 is also a Science Graduate, he has combination of only Physics, Chemistry and Biology, whereas the Madrassa needs a Science Teacher, who could teach Mathematics to the students. It has also been argued that in the absence of any teacher with Mathematics, the Madrassa may face de-recognition by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. 7. It has also been argued that in the absence of any teacher with Mathematics, the Madrassa may face de-recognition by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 290/2014 vide judgment dated 05.05.2016 has already held that the Act clearly provides for provincialisation of services solely on the basis of seniority of teachers and there is no provision relating to criteria of combination of subject of Science Teacher for provincialisation. Therefore, respondent No. 1 being much senior to the appellant, has a right to be considered for provincialisation on the basis of his seniority as provided under Rule 4(2) of the Act. The real issue in the matter is of provincialisation of services under the provision of the Act and not of either recognition or de-recognition of the Madrassa in question. 8. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.