Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 410 (GAU)

Neful Nahar Begum v. State of Assam

2018-03-08

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department and Mr. DK Sarmah, learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as Mr. T Islam, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. As the issue involved in WP (C) No.3332/2013 is same as that of WP (C) No.5871/2012, the said writ petition is not separately adjudicated and the order to be passed would cover both the writ petitions. 3. The petitioner, who is a graduate in Arts from the Gauhati University was selected and engaged as an Assistant Teacher in the Mohammad Ali High School, Darrang on and from 17.10.1992 and since then she is discharging her duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. In the year 1993, the concerned High School which was a Venture Education Institution was recognized by the Govt. of Assam and at the time of recognition, the school had 14 teachers including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 had joined in the said school also as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1996. 4. To that extent, the petitioner relies upon the statement prepared by the Headmaster of the school in the year 1994 in the prescribed proforma wherein the petitioner was shown at Sl. No.10. But in the statement showing the particulars of the existing teachers prepared by the Headmaster in the year 1997, the particulars were manipulated and the respondent No.5 was shown at Sl. No.3 while the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners had preferred this writ petition for a direction to the respondent No.3 to correct the date of appointment as well as the depiction of the teachers of the school as contained in the letter dated 23.12.1997 of the Headmaster. Further relief has been sought for that while considering the provincialisation of the teachers of the school, the respondent authorities shall undertake the same only upon correcting the depiction of the petitioner in the list of teachers of the school. 5. Further relief has been sought for that while considering the provincialisation of the teachers of the school, the respondent authorities shall undertake the same only upon correcting the depiction of the petitioner in the list of teachers of the school. 5. Without going into the issue of adjudicating as to whether the letter of the Headmaster in the year 1997 depicts the correct seniority position of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that as in the meantime, the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 under which the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 had claimed provincialisation has been declared to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2016 passed in WP (C) No.3190/2012, therefore, the issue as regards the seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondent No.5 in the school as well as their respective entitlements to be provincialised under the aforesaid Act of 2011 need not be adjudicated for the present. 6. It is stated that, in the meantime, a subsequent Act being the Assam Education (Provincialisation) of Service of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institution Act, 2017 has been enacted and under Section 13 (6) of the said Act all such teachers who are found eligible shall be considered for provincialisation. Therefore, in view of the above, the question for provincialisation of the petitioner or that of the respondent No.5 would now have to be considered under the Act of 2017. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed by providing that the respective claim of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 be further processed and examined under Section 13 (6) of the Act of 2017. 8. In terms of the above, these writ petitions stands closed. 9. It is stated that the petitioner is not being allowed to discharge her duties in the concerned school. To that extent, the Inspector of School, Darrang shall look into the matter and take up the same with the Headmaster of the school to do the needful and ensure that the petitioner is not illegally deprived from discharging her duties. It is further clarified that the Inspector of Schools, Darrang will examine the matter and if the petitioner is allowed to discharge her duties in a legitimate and legally accepted manner, in such event, the aforesaid requirement need not be carried out. 10. It is further clarified that the Inspector of Schools, Darrang will examine the matter and if the petitioner is allowed to discharge her duties in a legitimate and legally accepted manner, in such event, the aforesaid requirement need not be carried out. 10. The aforesaid consideration by the Inspector of Schools as regards allowing the petitioner to serve shall be done within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.