Jitumoni Bhattacharyya S/o Sri. Ghanashyam Bhattacharyya v. State of Assam
2018-03-22
HRISHIKESH ROY
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. Heard Ms. L. Devi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The authorities of the Department of Elementary Education are represented by the learned standing counsel Mr. S.P Bhattacharjee. 2. The challenge here is to the speaking order dated 25.05.2009 (Annexure-K), whereby, the petitioner's claim for salary was rejected by the authority on the ground that no teacher in the name of Jitumoni Bhattacharyya (writ petitioner) is working in the No. 1 Bagarikhuti L.P School. The impugned order was passed because of the Court's direction dated 23.03.2004 (page-23) in the WP (C) No. 1582/2004 (Jitumani Bhattacharyya v. State of Assam). 3. Assailing the legality of the speaking order, Ms. L. Devi, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner, who was initially appointed at the Bagarikhuti L.P School, was transferred along with his post on 05.03.2001 (Annexure-D) and he was attached with the Ulabori Balika L.P School in the Pub Nalbari Block. Accordingly the counsel submits that the non-rendering of service by the petitioner at the No. 1 Bagarikhuti L.P School, should not have led to rejection of claim for salary, as he is serving in another school. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education Mr. S.P Bhattacharjee refers to the counter affidavit filed on 14.12.2015 to project that an expert committee was constituted to examine the claim for salary of L.P School teachers and the Committee in their deliberation held on 28.04.2009 considered the report of the Sub-Committee relating to the purported service of the petitioner. The enquiry report furnished by the D.I of Schools, Nalbari revealed that the petitioner was never appointed by the D.I of Schools, Nalbari and no teacher corresponding to the petitioner's name, is serving in the No. 1 Bagarikhuti L.P School. 5. As regards the purported order dated 05.03.2001 (Annexure-D), whereby, the petitioner along with his post was transferred to the Ulabori Balika L.P School from the Bagarikhuti L.P School, the departmental lawyer submits that the concerned appointment and transfer documents were all issued by one G.N Haloi, who was the cause of large scale illegal and fake appointments in Nalbari district. In fact the same person has described himself as D.I of Schools; DEEO, Nalbari in various documents. Since the concerned documents are not available in the office of the Dy.
In fact the same person has described himself as D.I of Schools; DEEO, Nalbari in various documents. Since the concerned documents are not available in the office of the Dy. Inspector of Schools, the referred documents are described as false and fabricated. The writ petition records show that the petitioner was purportedly appointed on 04.12.1999 (Annexure-A) at the Bagarikhuti High School by S.N Sarma, D.I of Schools. Then his post was converted to non-plan category on 13.10.2000 (Annexure-B) by the D.I of Schools G.N Haloi. Then the same G.N Haloi purportedly transferred him with the post, to Ulabori Balika L.P School. 6. In the context of the prayer for salary made by the litigant, who claims to have been appointed in L.P Schools in Nalbari district by S.N Sarma and G.N Haloi, respectively, this Court had occasion to examine such similar claims and it was found that thousands of people were illegally appointed against very few sanctioned posts in Nalbari district. Thus no relief was granted for those claimants, under the judgments in the WP (C) No. 4740/2006 (Jagannath Kr. Dey v. State of Assam) and in the WP (C) No. 6177/2010 (Pratul Sarma v. State of Assam) which was upheld in the WA No. 427/2016 (Pratul Sarma v. State of Assam). 7. When no record for appointment of the petitioner is available in the DI's office and he relies on fake and fabricated documents and the averments in the counter affidavit have remained un-rebutted, I am of the considered opinion that the decision to reject the claim for salary should be left undisturbed. Accordingly the writ petition is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.