Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 220 (GAU)

Rajaram Medhi v. State of Assam

2018-02-06

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N.I. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel for BTC and Mr. S.P Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, Government of Assam. 2. An advertisement dated 26.04.1999 was issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni inviting applications from intending candidates for filling up of 20 numbers of posts of teachers in LP Schools and Middle Schools in the Bijni Sub Division, which is presently included under the Bodoland Territorial Council Area (BTC). Consequent to such selection, a select list dated 16.05.1999 was issued in which, as per the claim of the petitioner, their names were included. As no appointments were made, the petitioners approached this Court by way of an earlier writ petition being WP (C) No.652/2000. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the order dated 13.03.2001, by which a direction was issued to the respondent authorities that if there are vacancies available, the case of the petitioners be considered as they were duly selected, provided persons below the petitioners have been appointed. 3. Mr. N.I Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners points out to various communications thereafter from the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni and other officials in the Education Department, which indicates that some kind of considerations were given to the claim of the petitioners. One such communication referred is from the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bijni to the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Assam. In the said communication, it had been stated that there exists some further vacancies due to retirement and death of the existing LP School teachers and therefore, a request was made that the case of the petitioners be considered against such vacancies. 4. It is noticed that firstly, the vacancies referred in the said communication of 24.06.2002 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools refers to some future vacancies, which admittedly were not included in the advertisement of 1999 and secondly, no material has been produced that the said communication was acted upon by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Assam. 5. Be that as it may, in this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31.10.2012 of the Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar, by which a consideration was given to the claim of the petitioners as required by the order dated 13.03.2001 in WP (C) No.652/2000. 5. Be that as it may, in this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31.10.2012 of the Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar, by which a consideration was given to the claim of the petitioners as required by the order dated 13.03.2001 in WP (C) No.652/2000. As per the said order of 31.10.2012, the Secretary, BTC arrives at a conclusion that out of the 20 posts included in the advertisement, 08 (eight) posts were taken out along with four other posts to be included amongst 12 number of posts, which were ordered to be kept reserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some matter. Accordingly, the Secretary, BTC arrives at a conclusion that 12 posts were available for being filled up as per the advertisement of 1999. It was further concluded that the 12 available posts had been duly filled up from amongst the selected candidates. A further stand had been taken by the Secretary, BTC that the select list was valid for a period of one year that is from 16.05.1999 and in the meantime, more than 11 years had elapsed and therefore, the said select list cannot be further acted upon. 6. On a consideration being given, both the stand taken by the Secretary, BTC in the order dated 31.10.2012 cannot be faulted with and the same, without there being anything contrary being pointed out, have to be accepted to be factually correct as well as acceptable under the law. Accordingly, no case has been made out for interference with the said order of 31.10.2012 of the Secretary, BTC. 7. Accordingly, no merit is found in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands closed.