Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1101 (GAU)

Shahud Ahmed Barlaskar v. State of Assam

2018-07-26

SUMAN SHYAM

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None appears for respondent Nos.5 to 9. 2. The writ petitioners herein, numbering 9 in total, are working as Graduate Teachers in the various Higher Secondary Schools situated in the districts of Cachar and Hailakandi headed by the respondent Nos.5 to 9 as Principals. The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that with a view to tide over the crisis of Postgraduate Teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools the Government of Assam had issued Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2012 directing the Graduate Teachers with postgraduate degrees to teach in the Classes XI and XII as Subject Teachers in their relevant subjects and considering the fact that the writ petitioners are all postgraduate degree holders, they have been made to teach the students of Classes XI and XII. Since the responsibility to teach the students of Classes XI and XII is of the Postgraduate Teachers, hence, the petitioners have claimed the pay scale of Postgraduate Teachers for the period from 19.05.2012 and also a further direction from this Court to regularly adjust them against the vacant posts of Postgraduate Teachers (Subject Teachers). 3. By filing counter affidavit the department has taken a stand that after the enactment of the Right to Education Act, 2009 Class-VIII has been detached from the Secondary School as a result of which the High Schools have been reduced to only two classes i.e. Classes-IX and X thereby reducing the workload of Graduate Teachers. It is also the stand of the respondents that in the absence of TET qualification, no teacher can be appointed as Postgraduate Teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools since the Rules do not permit the same. The official respondents have also stated that steps have already been initiated to fill up all vacant posts of Subject Teachers, hence, the involvement of the Graduate Teachers in the matter is purely temporary in nature. 4. Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has also invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4702/2012 [Md. 4. Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has also invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4702/2012 [Md. Ismail Hussain and 3 others vs. The State of Assam and others] to contend that the same issue has been considered by this Court in the earlier writ petition and the similar prayer made by the petitioners therein was rejected by the learned Single Judge. As such, Mr. Deka submits that this writ petition is covered by the order dated 14.09.2017. 5. Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners, has also fairly submitted that the case of his clients would stand covered by the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by this Court. 6. From a careful scrutiny of the record I find that WP(C) No.4702/2012 was preferred by a few Graduate Teachers assailing the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2012. However, by way of an alternate prayer, the petitioners therein had also claimed the pay scale of Postgraduate Teachers with effect from 19.05.2012 on account of the fact that they were being made to teach the students of Classes-XI and XII in the Higher Secondary Schools. Rejecting the said plea of the petitioners, this Court had passed the order dated 14.09.2017 by making the following observations :- “8. Teaching is a noble profession and not much distinction can be made amongst the school teachers by referring to the classes where their services are utilised. The burden on a teacher, irrespective of the class in which his/her service is utilized, is substantially similar and the work load for teaching in higher classes, cannot be considered to be more burdensome than for teaching, in the lower classes. As long as the utilization of service is made on a rational basis, without putting extra burden on the Graduate Teachers with higher qualification, the claim for up-gradation or higher remuneration can have no legal force. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are made to serve for longer hours, as compared to the Graduate Teachers without the Post Graduate qualification. Therefore, the claim for up-gradation or extra remuneration, is not found to be merited. 9. That apart, the respondents have already taken steps to fill up the vacant posts of Subject Teachers and this is likely to result in lessening the workload for the petitioners. Therefore, the claim for up-gradation or extra remuneration, is not found to be merited. 9. That apart, the respondents have already taken steps to fill up the vacant posts of Subject Teachers and this is likely to result in lessening the workload for the petitioners. But even then there could be a situation, where a particular teacher may be more in demand for the secondary level classes, whereas a Subject Teacher may suffer in comparison. Such exigencies will have to be addressed appropriately by the Principal in better interest of the school and the students. But so long as the workload is not discriminatory and the teaching is within the school hours, the requirement to teaching higher secondary level students by the petitioners, cannot be a matter of intervention by the Court. 10. In my considered opinion, the O.M. dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure-2), is not burdensome and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court does not feel that any discrimination is caused, by deployment of qualified graduate teachers to teach the higher secondary level students. Thus, the writ petition is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.” 7. From a careful reading of the order dated 14.09.2017 I am of the view that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in WP(C) No.4702/2012. As such, there is no scope for granting any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.