Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 332 (GAU)

Praneta Bayan v. State of Assam

2017-03-16

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. None appears for respondent Nos.4 and 5 though served. 2. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the G.O.C. Janata High English School, Gelabil on 15.02.2001, she was appointed temporarily as Assistant Teacher (Music) in the scale of pay applicable to the said post. In terms of the said resolution, an order of appointment dated 17.02.2001 was issued in favour of the petitioner where after she joined in the said post on 19.02.2001. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously serving in the said post without any break in service till date. The High School in question is a venture school which is on the verge of being provincialised but the Government has extended financial assistance to the school under the State Plan scheme “Financial Assistance to Venture Educational Institutions”. The grievance of the petitioner is that although she has been continuously working as an Assistant Teacher (Music), yet her name has been dropped from the list of teachers who have been extended the benefit of financial assistance granted by the Government for no valid reason. 3. By referring to the guidelines framed by the Government of Assam for implementation of the aforementioned financial assistance scheme, Mr. Sikdar submits that the petitioner fulfills all the requisite norms so as to avail the benefit of financial assistance. However, she has been denied such benefit merely on account of the fact that under the guidelines/instructions issued by the Government department regarding the staffing pattern to be followed in such schools, there is no mention of the post of Music Teacher in a “6-Classes High School/High Madrassa”. By referring to the aforesaid guidelines Mr. Sikdar submits that in case of a “3-Classes High School/High Madrassa” one post of Music Teacher has been sanctioned. However, for reasons not discernible on record, no such post of Music Teacher has been provided in the 6-Classes High School/High Madrassa. Mr. By referring to the aforesaid guidelines Mr. Sikdar submits that in case of a “3-Classes High School/High Madrassa” one post of Music Teacher has been sanctioned. However, for reasons not discernible on record, no such post of Music Teacher has been provided in the 6-Classes High School/High Madrassa. Mr. Sikdar therefore, submits that such an omission, besides being arbitrary and illegal, is also contrary to the letter and spirit of the regulations promulgated by the Government pertaining to High Schools/High Madrassas in the year 1988 which is holding the field as on date. The learned counsel submits that as per the Regulations of 1988, there is a provision for specialist in dance, music, agriculture and other similar subjects in a 6-Classes High School/High Madrassa and therefore, there was no valid reason for the respondents to drop the post of Music Teacher from a 6-Classes High School/High Madrassa. 4. Responding to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education, Assam, fairly submits that the record does not disclose the reason as to why the post of Music Teacher has been dropped in case of a 6-Classes High School/High Madrassa while retaining the said post in case of 3-Classes High School/High Madrassa. Under the circumstances, Mr. Sarma submits that the matter be remanded back to the concerned authorities for taking a fresh decision in the matter. 5. From a scrutiny of the materials available on record, it is apparent that the post of Music Teacher has been retained in the 3-Classes High School/High Madrassas but the said post has been dropped in the 6 Classes High School/High Madrassas. Be it mentioned herein that in a 3-Classes school, only the 8th, 9th and 10th Standard used to be initially reckoned in the High School section which has further been modified subsequently to include only the Classes-IX and X. However, in a 6-Classes High School/High Madrassa Classes VI to X are treated as the High School section whereas Classes V and down below are treated as the Lower Primary Section. If that be so, it is not understood how the requirement of a Music Teacher have been dispensed with in a school having higher student representation in the High School section while retaining the same in a school where only two classes viz. Class-IX an X are included in the High School section. 6. If that be so, it is not understood how the requirement of a Music Teacher have been dispensed with in a school having higher student representation in the High School section while retaining the same in a school where only two classes viz. Class-IX an X are included in the High School section. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as per resolution adopted by the school management committee which was also subsequently approved by the Inspector of Schools, BDC, Barpeta vide order dated 28.02.2003. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is serving in the said school without any break in service. Under the circumstances, omitting the petitioner from the purview of financial assistance merely by dropping the post of Music Teacher, appears to be wholly arbitrary and illegal. In the absence of any reasonable basis shown by the respondents justifying the omission of the post of Assistant Teacher (Music), this Court is of the considered view that such omission was wholly illegal, discriminatory and is hereby declared so. 7. In the light of the observations made herein above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to examine the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter for redressal of her grievance within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a representation filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this order. The petitioner is also granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.2 ventilating her grievances within ten days from today. 8. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.