Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 105 (GAU)

Pratul Sarma v. State of Assam

2017-01-24

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayatha, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6177/2010 dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants. 3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the State of Assam through the Elementary Education Department had earlier issued an advertisement notice dated 28.12.1996 inviting applications for filling up certain posts of Assistant Teacher in M.E. Schools in the State of Assam. In response to the said advertisement a large number of candidates including the appellants, who belong to Nalbari district, had submitted their applications. Subsequently, they had appeared in the interview and were issued appointment orders in the month of March, 2001 pursuant whereto they had also joined service in their respective schools. However, later on, several illegalities in the appointment process were detected by the Government and it was also found that appointments had been made without the approval of the competent authorities and far in excess of the sanctioned vacancies by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools and the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari. Accordingly, by an order dated 19.07.2001 issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, a decision was taken to the effect that all appointments of teachers with effect from 01.03.2001 in respect of Nalbari district would be treated as cancelled. Thereafter, order dated 21.07.2001 was passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari, cancelling all appointments of M.E. School teachers made with effect from 01.03.2001. 4. It would be relevant to mention herein that following the orders passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions arising out of the order of cancellation of the appointment of teachers an enquiry committee was earlier constituted so as to verify the genuineness of the appointments made during the period of March 2001 in respect of the OBB teachers in the district of Nalbari and the enquiry committee had submitted a report stating that the appointments of the petitioners were of doubtful origin. The enquiry revealed that the District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari, Sri A.C. Choudhury, had himself appointed 419 numbers of teachers in M.E. schools against 135 allotted sanctioned posts without obtaining any approval from the authority of the Education Department. Since it was practically impossible to segregate the illegal appointees from the genuine ones, hence, the Government had issued an order dated 04.07.2001 directing the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to cancel all illegal appointments pursuant whereto the order dated 19.07.2001, as noted above, was issued which was followed by the subsequent order dated 21.07.2001. Challenging their orders of termination passed in the year 2001 the appellants as writ petitioners had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6177/2010 after a delay of nearly fifteen years without giving any proper explanation for such delay. 5. By taking note of the grievance of the writ petitioners and on the basis of threadbare discussion of the issues raised in the writ petition the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by making the following observations :- “The Inquiry Committee, constituted to verify the genuine teachers appointed in March, 2001 under OBB scheme in Nalbari district, on scrutinizing the record noticed that the registers and files did not contain any proceeding or select list duly signed by the Chairman or members of the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board, Nalbari in connection with the appointments. All records were found in photo-stat form and no original documents were found. The Committee also verified the claims of the 27 petitioners and on verification, it was found that names of none of the 27 petitioners were found in the record. No document relating to their appointments could be located in the record. Therefore, the Committee opined that the appointment of the petitioners appeared to be doubtful. Respondent No.1 in his affidavit has described in detail the illegal appointments made by the then District Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari and Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari. As already noticed above, Sri AC Choudhury, the then District Elementary Education Officer himself appointed 419 numbers of teachers in ME Schools against the allotted 135 sanctioned posts. Specific averments have been made that it was physically not possible to separate the illegal appointees from the genuine appointees. Petitioners were terminated from service way back in the year 2001. As already noticed above, Sri AC Choudhury, the then District Elementary Education Officer himself appointed 419 numbers of teachers in ME Schools against the allotted 135 sanctioned posts. Specific averments have been made that it was physically not possible to separate the illegal appointees from the genuine appointees. Petitioners were terminated from service way back in the year 2001. The appointments made during the period when the petitioners were appointed have been found to be grossly illegal being made far in excess of the sanctioned allotted posts and without any interview. Even the Inquiry Committee noted that appointments of the petitioners were found to be doubtful. Therefore, segregating the legally appointed teachers from the illegally appointed teachers was not possible. In such circumstances, acceding to the prayer made by the petitioners at this juncture, 15 years after their termination, would neither be just nor proper, more so with the facts staring at the face.” 6. The aforementioned finding appears to have been recorded by the learned Single Judge based on cogent materials available on record. Petitioners having been appointed on the basis of an illegal process cannot have any right to continue in service nor can they claim any equity in their favour. Moreover, the petitioners having approached the Court nine years after the cancellation of their orders of appointment, they are also guilty of laches and negligence. Therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the materials available on record, we find ourselves completely in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, as reflected in the impugned order dated 03.05.2016. We, therefore, find no good ground to admit the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.