Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1161 (GAU)

Samar Jyoti Phukan v. State of Assam

2018-08-07

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. The petitioners, amongst others participated in a selection process for appointment as teachers in the provincialised lower primary and upper primary school pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.11.2012. The last date of submission of application form as per advertisement was 10.12.2012. The advertisement further provided that preference would be given to those having B.E.d degree or two years diploma in Elementary Education (D El.Ed) from recognized institutes. The petitioners admittedly did not have their B.Ed or D El.Ed degree as on the last date of submission of the application, but obtained the qualification prior to the interview that was held. Accordingly, the necessary testimonials indicating the B.E.d degree/D. El.Ed were produced in the interview and the same was taken into account for the purpose of selection. 3. In the said selection process, the petitioners were selected and appointed as per the order dated 28.06.2013. After the petitioners were appointed, the respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice dated 12.05.2016 requiring them to appear before an Enquiry Committee on 17.05.2016 along with all relevant documents. In the notice, it is stated that the enquiry was undertaken in connection with another writ petition being WP(C) No.3472/2013 which was preferred by one Mrs. Minu Saikia and others. 4. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department explains that writ petition WP(C) 3472/2013 was preferred by Ms. Minu Saikia and others seeking a direction that they be appointed pursuant to the aforesaid selection process. 5. In course of hearing of WP(C) No.3472/2013, a situation had arisen where the Court was informed that similarly situated candidates like Mrs. Minu Saikia and others, who had also obtained their B.E.d degree/D El.Ed after the last date of submission of application form, were selected and appointed. In the circumstance, when the Court desired to know from the respondent authorities as to why different treatments were meted to similarly situated candidates, the respondent authorities thought it appropriate that the show cause notice dated 12.05.2016 be issued to those candidates, who were selected and appointed but obtained their B.E.d degree/D El.Ed subsequent to the last date of submission of application form. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel explains that the show cause notice dated 12.05.2016 requiring the present petitioners to appear before the Enquiry Committee was issued in the aforesaid circumstance. 7. Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners assails the said show cause notice seeking to justify that even if the petitioners did not have the B.E.d degree at the time of the last date for submission of the application form, still under the law laid down by this Court in its judgment and order 10.03.2016 in WP(C) 6715/2015, the petitioners have a legal right to be so appointed. This Court is of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners may be an appropriate ground to be taken in the show cause notice issued against him, whereupon, a final adjudication would be made by the authorities. But the said submission cannot be a reason for this Court to interfere with the show cause notice at present. A statement has also been made by Mr. B. Baruah that the petitioners have also been responded to the show cause notice dated 12.05.2016, but the said process had not been brought to its logical end and as a result, the petitioners are still continuing with their service. 8. In the above circumstance, this Court is of the view that no interference to the show cause notice is called for at this stage and the authorities upon considering the reply by the petitioner may bring the same to its logical end as deemed appropriate. 9. It is stated that there is an interim order dated 30.05.2016 operating in favour of the petitioners. It is provided that the said interim order shall continue to remain in force till such time the authorities may bring the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice dated 12.05.2016 to its logical end. It is further provided that in the event any order that may be passed in the proceeding would be against the interest of the petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Court again. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.