Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 385 (GAU)

Dhirendra Chandra Barman v. State of Assam

2018-03-05

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel for the B.T.C. authorities as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department and Mr. A.R. Sikdar for respondent No.6, 7 and 8. 2. By the WP (C) 1600/2013, the petitioner seeks for a direction to respondent authorities to provincialise his service as a teacher in the Chouraguri L.P. School in Baksa District. 3. By the other writ petition WP (C) 5842/2013, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the provincialisation of the respondent No.7 and 8 on the ground that the petitioner is senior to the said respondents. The respondents in the B.T.C. authorities have filed an affidavit in opposition dated 15.10.2014 in WP (C) 5842/2013 wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner had resigned from his service as an Assistant Teacher of Chouraguri L.P. School. To fortify the said stand, a letter dated 24.11.2010 of the petitioner addressed to the President/Secretary of Chouraguri L.P. School has also been annexed which indicates that the petitioner had resigned from service. Although on several occasions adjournments have been taken in order to enable the petitioner to file their affidavit in reply to the said affidavit in opposition of the respondent authorities, but till date, no such affidavit has been filed. 4. Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly states that the affidavit could not be filed as the petitioner is not keeping any contact with the learned counsel. 5. In the aforesaid circumstance of the affidavit not being filed, this Court is to construe the averment made in the affidavit in opposition to be the admitted position of fact and accordingly accept the contention of the authorities in the B.T.C. that the petitioner had resigned from his service. 6. In the event of petitioner having resigned from service, further requirement for a direction to provincialise his service as well as to set aside the provincialisation of respondent No.7 and 8 by declaring the petitioner to be senior to them is also not required. 7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands closed. However, in the event the petitioner is of the view that, he had not resigned from the service, liberty is granted to approach the Court again.