Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1228 (GAU)

JOY CHANDRA KONCH v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-08-20

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department as well as Mr. K. Nayak, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6. None appears for the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 inspite of notice being served as indicated in the Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2017. 2. Considering the nature of the grievance raised as well as the fact that none had appeared for the said respondents even after ten months having elapsed since the notices were served, this Court deemed it appropriate that the matter can be given a final consideration. 3. The petitioner claims to be the founder Assistant Teacher of Pub-Dhakuakhana L.P. School in the Lakhimpur district having been appointed on 28.11.1984. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.9 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 22.08.2004. But from January, 2011, the concerned Headmaster had not allowed the petitioner to sign the attendance register which according to the petitioner was done with the intention to deprive him from his services being provincialised. When the process for provincialisation was initiated, the Headmaster of the concerned school had not included the name of the petitioner in the particulars of the staff and on the other hand, had included the name of the respondent No.9. 4. This petition has been preferred on the grievance that the Headmaster while forwarding the particulars had committed illegalities in not sending the name of the petitioner. 5. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department states that the concerned school where the petitioner is working i.e. Pub-Dhakuakhana L.P. School has not yet been provincialised by the authorities under the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Service) Act, 2011 (in short Act of 2011). 6. Accordingly, it is submitted that the concerned school having not been provincialised under the Act of 2011, further process for provincialisation can be undertaken only under the Assam Education (Provincialisation) of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institution Act, 2017 (in short Act of 2017). 7. Mr. 6. Accordingly, it is submitted that the concerned school having not been provincialised under the Act of 2011, further process for provincialisation can be undertaken only under the Assam Education (Provincialisation) of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institution Act, 2017 (in short Act of 2017). 7. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel further submits that under Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017, all such eligible teachers would be considered for the purpose of provincialisation and therefore, as long as the petitioner is serving in the school, it does not matter as to whether the Headmaster sends his name or the name of the respondent No.9. In other words, whenever the process of provincialisation is initiated under the Act of 2017, both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.9 would be considered as per law. 8. In view of the aforesaid stand, this Court is of the view that there remains no further requirement to adjudicate as to who between the petitioner and the respondent No.9 ought to have been send by the Headmaster for the purpose of provincialisation. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed by providing that whenever the process for provincialisation is initiated under the Act of 2017, the respondent authorities shall consider both the petitioner and the respondent No.9 strictly as per their entitlement under the law.