Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 753 (GAU)

Md. Naizuddin Ahmed v. State of Assam

2017-06-08

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. G Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Education Department. 2. The petitioners after having participated in the selection process, pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.12.1996, were appointed in the year 1999 as Assistant Teacher of the respective schools in the Mangaldoi Sub-Division of the erstwhile Darrang district. It is the case of the petitioners that although they were duly appointed, their services were not regularized. 3. Per contra, it is the case of the respondents that in the present Darrang district there were many numbers of illegal/irregular appointments. Therefore, it was difficult for the respondent authorities to distinguish between the genuine candidates and illegally/irregularly appointed candidates. Accordingly, the authorities by the Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2011 had constituted a Screening Committee for examining the cases of such illegally/irregularly appointed teachers in various districts of Assam, including the Darrang district. Subsequent to the said Office Memorandum, the respondent authorities by the letter dated 14.08.2014 had referred the cases of certain number of teachers before the Committee once again, inasmuch as, those teachers were not given due consideration in the earlier round of consideration, as per the Office Memorandum dated 15.11.2011. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that their cases were not considered even in the subsequent round of the examination by the Screening Committee. Consequently, they preferred this writ petition for a direction to the respondent authorities for verification/enquiry/scrutinizing of their cases by the Screening Committee. 5. Mr. N Sarma, also refers to another Notification dated 03.11.2016 by which it has been provided that the Government in the Elementary Education Department had decided for re-verification of the particulars for some of the applicants by the Committee which was earlier notified by the Notification dated 04.06.2014. It is provided in the said Notification that the re-verification would be carried out only in respect of those candidates who had been examined during the Screening. As it is the case of the petitioners that their cases were never examined by the Screening Committee, even the subsequent Notification of 03.11.2016 do not mitigate their grievances, inasmuch as, the said Notification merely provides that the re-verification will be carried out in respect of such applicants, who were earlier examined during the Screening. 6. As it is the case of the petitioners that their cases were never examined by the Screening Committee, even the subsequent Notification of 03.11.2016 do not mitigate their grievances, inasmuch as, the said Notification merely provides that the re-verification will be carried out in respect of such applicants, who were earlier examined during the Screening. 6. On the other hand, the State respondent through the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division has filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraph 10, it is stated that in the earlier process, a procedure was adopted that the DEEO would open the trunk in presence of one ADC and complete the preliminary work under the supervision of the ADC. But, however, in respect of Darrang district, the said procedure was not followed and the DEEO had opened the trunk in the absence of the ADC and had completed the preliminary work of verification in his own supervision. 7. It is also stated that although the date of verification of the teachers was fixed on 10.11.2014, but the DEEO was not found present on the date of hearing. It is also stated that on the day of hearing, altogether 238 Nos. of teachers were called for verification, although the DEEO had provided a list of only 58 teachers. Accordingly, it is stated that the Screening Committee had conducted the verification process only in respect of such 58 applicants which was provided by the DEEO and rest 182 applicants were not given its due consideration. 8. It transpires from the above, that the cases of the petitioners were included in those 182 applications, which were not examined by the Screening Committee. The said affidavit also provides that the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division apprehends that the DEEO had tampered with the records of the candidates that the trunk containing the documents of the candidates as the same was opened by the DEEO in the absence of the ADC. 9. In view of such anomalies indicated in the affidavit of the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, this Court deems it appropriate that the petitioners have a legal right that their cases be also examined by the Screening Committee as regards the authenticity and genuiness of their appointment. 10. The claim of the petitioners for an examination by the Screening Committee cannot be rejected, merely on the ground that the DEEO had not forwarded the names of those petitioners before the Screening Committee. 10. The claim of the petitioners for an examination by the Screening Committee cannot be rejected, merely on the ground that the DEEO had not forwarded the names of those petitioners before the Screening Committee. 11. In such view of the matter, in the interest of justice, it is provided that the cases of the present petitioners be also placed before the Screening Committee and further their cases be accordingly examined as per law. 12. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands closed. 14. Copy of the Notification dated 03.11.2016 be kept as part of the records.