Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 485 (GAU)

Basanti Das v. State of Assam

2017-04-24

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. N. Hoque, learned, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent, Education Department. 2. The petitioners, herein, were appointed on 31.3.1986 in the Kuruka LP School and on 1.1.1990 in Chatiana LP School, respectively. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were trained teachers from the Government recognized institutions and by virtue of their training, they should get preferential treatment for getting appointment on regular basis as pre-primary teachers, more particularly, since they are working in different schools on honorary basis since 20 years. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of regularization they had preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4281/2001, which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 20.6.2001, with a direction to dispose of their representation dated 2.1.2001. On the said representation not being disposed of, the petitioners had preferred a contempt petition being Cont.Cas (C) No. 124/2003, but the same was also closed on 10.9.2007, at the hearing stage, as none had appeared by the petitioners. 5. In the above background, the petitioners had preferred this writ petition for a direction that their services be regularized. The Director of Elementary Education, had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, dated 4.2.2016, wherein, in paragraph 5, it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed/engaged by the School Management Committee on honorary basis after the schools were provincialised and further there is no provision for any pre-primary school teacher to be appointed. 6. In paragraph 6, it has been stated that the Managing Committee has no authority to appoint any person after the schools are provincialised. In this regard, a decision of this court in Jahangir Alom v. State of Assam, 2003 (3) GLT 544, has been relied upon, wherein it has already been held that the Managing Committee has no authority to appoint any teacher after the school is provincialised. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the law laid down by this court in Jahangir Alom (supra), this court is of the view that the petitioner has no legal right to be regularized, inasmuch as, they were appointed in their respective schools by the Managing Committee after the schools were provincialised. 8. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the law laid down by this court in Jahangir Alom (supra), this court is of the view that the petitioner has no legal right to be regularized, inasmuch as, they were appointed in their respective schools by the Managing Committee after the schools were provincialised. 8. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the petitioners are also contrary to the procedures for appointment as laid down in the Assam Elementary Education Provincialised Act, 1974 and the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. The aforesaid Rules of 1977 provides for a definite procedure, by which the appointment of the Assistant Teachers are to be made in the provincialised school. The manner, in which the petitioners have been appointed is contrary to the aforesaid provisions laid down in the Rules of 1977. 9. In such view of the matter, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.