Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 746 (GAU)

Pratibha Goswami v. State of Assam

2017-06-07

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called upon. This matter was earlier listed on 05.06.2017 and on the said date also none had appeared for the petitioner. Accordingly, an order dated 05.06.2017 was passed that in the event, none appears for the petitioner on the next date also, the Court would be constrained to proceed with the matter in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted an application before the respondent authorities for appointment to the post of Hindi Teacher and accordingly, on being selected by the District Level Selection Board, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Hindi Teacher in Gandhi Nagar Girls High School as per the order dated 18.01.1996 of the respondent No.4, being the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup district. It is stated that the said post of Hindi Teacher was vacant due to retirement of one Ms. Labanya Dev Barman in the month of January, 1995. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the post on 21.01.1996. The respondent No.4 by a subsequent order dated 29.03.1996 has extended the term of the service of the petitioner by another three months and thereafter, the respondent No.4 by an order dated 27.03.2001 had regularized the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. It is stated that since then, the petitioner has been discharging her duties regularly without any break. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was paid her salary and allowances regularly, but since the month of April, 1996, no salary and allowances had been paid to the petitioner. 3. Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department submits that although the services of the petitioner has been regularized by the respondent No.4 being the Inspector of Schools, but no such approval had been granted to such regularization. It is also stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department that the appointment letter of the petitioner indicates that the appointment had been made subject to selection by the District Level Selection Committee and as such, the appointment of the petitioner has not been made in a regular manner. It is also stated that the appointment of the petitioner had been made till such period a regular teacher is appointed in the school. 4. It is also stated that the appointment of the petitioner had been made till such period a regular teacher is appointed in the school. 4. Be that as it may, in the event the petitioner had been appointed by an authority under the Education Department and she had rendered her service, she is entitled to her salary and allowances for the period, for which the petitioner had rendered service. In the event, the respondent authorities are of the view that the petitioner has no right to continue in the service, appropriate action may be taken against the petitioner by following the due procedure of law. 5. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department that for the purpose of determining as to whether a teacher is entitled to payment of salary, the Government of Assam pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar Vs State of Assam and others, reported in (2006) 2 GLT 216 had constituted a committee to examine such matter. 6. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to place the case of the petitioner for payment of salary before the aforesaid committee constituted pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar (Supra). 7. Upon the matter being placed before the said committee, the committee would give a due consideration to the claim of the petitioner and also examine as to whether the petitioner had actually worked for the given period or not. 8. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. A copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department for onward transmission of the same to the authorities for doing the needful pursuant to the direction of this Court in this judgment and order. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.