Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1603 (GAU)

Gadadhar Das v. State of Assam

2018-11-12

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel for the BTC authorities as well as Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department. 2. The petitioners herein are all Assistant Teachers serving in their respective ME Schools in the district of Baksa Assam. They are aggrieved to the extent that although a process had been initiated by the respondent authorities for considering the cases of the teachers for provincialisation under the Assam Education (Provincialisation) of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institution Act, 2017 (Act of 2017 for short), but they have been left out from the proposal sent by the authorities for the purpose. 3. Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017, inter alia provides that the district scrutiny committee shall prepare a list of all Venture Educational Institutions within the district, which are eligible in terms of the provisions of this Act and shall thereafter proceed to scrutinize and verify the service records of all the serving teachers, who are eligible or would become eligible for being considered for provincialisation of their services. The very provision of Section 13(6) that the district scrutiny committee shall scrutinize and verify the service records of all the serving teachers who are eligible or would become eligible for provincilisation is by itself an indication that the authorities will consider the eligibility for provincialisation by giving due consideration to the claim of all the serving teachers. 4. It being the provision of the Act of 2017, there cannot be a situation where the authorities may in a pick and choose manner send the names of some of the teachers for the purpose of such consideration while leaving out others. It is another factor that upon consideration a reasoned order would be passed as to whether the services of a particular candidate is to be provincialised or not but that by itself would not mean that the initial eligibility will not be considered in respect of all the teachers. 5. From the said point of view, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein being serving teachers in venture educational institutions have a legal right that their cases for provincialisation be also considered by the authorities along with others. 6. 5. From the said point of view, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein being serving teachers in venture educational institutions have a legal right that their cases for provincialisation be also considered by the authorities along with others. 6. Being aggrieved, it is stated that the petitioners have also filed a representation dated 7.6.2018. But, however, Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would like to submit a fresh representation for the purpose. 7. Upon such representation being filed, the authorities shall consider as to whether the petitioners are basically eligible for being considered for provincialisation and if yes, they shall pass a reasoned order and send a proposal in respect of the petitioners before the district scrutiny committee which thereupon shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order as to their entitlement to be provincialised. 8. The aforesaid be done within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Upon undertaking the aforesaid exercise, a reasoned order thereon shall be passed. 9. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.