Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 717 (GAU)

Tushpara Pre-Senior Madrassa v. State of Assam

2017-06-02

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in all the three writ petitions and Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for Secondary Education Department, Assam. Although Mr. D.A Kaiyum, learned counsel had appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 9 to 36 in WP(C) No.2091/2012, but it is stated at bar that the said learned counsel had expressed that he no longer represents the said respondent Nos. 9 to 36. It is also stated that in WP(C) No.2119/2012, an association in the name of All Assam Madrassa Teachers Association had been impleaded as respondent No.7, but none has appeared for the said respondent, when the matter is called upon for hearing. In any view of the matter, considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the respondent Nos. 9 to 36 in WP(C) No.2091/2012 and the respondent No.7 in WP(C) No.2119/2012 would not be prejudicially affected, inasmuch as, they would be given the opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner and Secretary while the matter is being examined. 2. As the issue involved in WP(C) No.2091/2012 is same as that of WP(C) No.2292/2012 and WP(C) No.2119/2012, it is deemed appropriate that all these writ petitions be heard together and be decided by a common judgment and order. 3. The petitioner Madrassas are aggrieved by the letter dated 29.01.2010 of the Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, wherein certain list as recommended by the State Level Grant in Aid Committee for receiving funds under a scheme called “Scheme for Providing Quality Education to Madrassas (SPQEM)” has been assailed. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the guidelines of the SPQEM scheme, containing the eligibility conditions in Clause-12, Madrassas in respect of whom, the expenditure on account of honorarium of the teachers is made by the State Government, will not be eligible for the salary component under the scheme. It is provided in Clause-12 that however, such Madrassas will be eligible for financial assistance under other components of the scheme. Further, the application form, which is provided as Annexure to the SPQEM scheme, in Clause-8, provides that the payment made under the scheme be on a contract basis and that the scheme does not provide for a cadre or regular appointment. 4. Further, the application form, which is provided as Annexure to the SPQEM scheme, in Clause-8, provides that the payment made under the scheme be on a contract basis and that the scheme does not provide for a cadre or regular appointment. 4. By referring to the recommended list enclosed to the letter dated 29.01.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out to column 3 of the list, wherein the amount required for the three teachers as per Format-1 is indicated. By referring to said column-3, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said amount specified in Clause-3 is for the purpose of payment of salary to the teachers. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Madrassas enlisted in the said recommended list, receives the required amount from the State Government for payment of the salary to their teachers. Therefore, under Clause-12 of the eligibility conditions, such Madrassas are not eligible for the salary component under the scheme. It is also submitted that however, as provided in Clause-12, the said Madrassas may be eligible for the financial assistance under the other component of the scheme. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners raises a contention that the SPQEM scheme is applicable only in respect of those Madrassas, which do not receive financial sanction from the State Government for the purpose of payment of the salary to the teachers. In fact, the said scheme, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is a scheme formulated for the benefit of such Madrassas, who do not get financial assistance from the Government for the purpose of its salary and other purpose. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the Madrassas, who receive salary component from the State Government are also included in the scheme, the very purpose of the SPQEM scheme would be frustrated and such Madrassas, who do not receive any such financial assistance from the State Government would continue to suffer and not get the benefit of the scheme. 6. On a reading of Clause-12’s terms and conditions, this Court finds sufficient force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. On a reading of Clause-12’s terms and conditions, this Court finds sufficient force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In such view of the matter, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) department shall examine the matter as to whether under the SPQEM scheme, the Madrassas, who receive financial sanction from the State Government for the purpose of payment of salary are also to be included in the scheme or not. In the event, the Commissioner and Secretary comes to a conclusion that such Madrassas are not to be included in the scheme, the Commissioner and Secretary would further examine as to which of the Madrassas in the recommended list are receiving the salary component from the State Government. Upon arriving at such a conclusion, appropriate orders may be passed accordingly. 7. In arriving at such a conclusion, as the respondent Nos. 9 to 38, who are purportedly the Madrassas, who are included in the recommended list, have not been heard, it would be incumbent upon the Commissioner and Secretary to issue notice to the said respondent Nos. 9 to 36 and give them an opportunity of hearing to present their case also. The Commissioner and Secretary shall also issue notice to the respondent All Assam Madrassa Teachers Association and also provide them with an opportunity of hearing. At the same time, the Commissioner and Secretary shall also afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing to present their case. Both the petitioners and respondent Nos. 9 to 36 and the respondent No.7 being the All Assam Madrassa Teachers Association may produce any material that they may desire in order to substantiate their rival claim. 8. Upon undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the Commissioner and Secretary shall pass appropriate orders for doing the needful and to ensure that the financial benefits under the SPQEM scheme is disbursed strictly according to the eligibility provided in the terms and conditions and guidelines of the scheme. 9. It is stated that an interim order was passed in WP(C) No.2091/2012 requiring the respondent authorities not to disburse the concerned fund under the SPQEM scheme till the adjudication of the writ petitions. 9. It is stated that an interim order was passed in WP(C) No.2091/2012 requiring the respondent authorities not to disburse the concerned fund under the SPQEM scheme till the adjudication of the writ petitions. Accordingly, it is provided that such interim order not to disburse the fund shall continue till the Commissioner and Secretary passes its final order after examining the matter. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the entire writ petitions stand disposed of.