Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2018 DIGILAW 601 (SC)

Miss Rita Sarkar v. State Of Assam

2018-04-10

ARUN MISHRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT

body2018
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Rita Sarkar aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the high Court at Gauhati on 12.05.2003. 3. It appears that certain land was donated by the father of the appellant way back in the year 1985 for starting of the school - Pub Dwarkuchi Adarsha L.P. School. On 2.6.1987, the Managing Committee ultimately took a decision to appoint one of the members of the family of the owner of land as headmaster/headmistress of the School. The appellant-Rita Sarkar came to be appointed as head mistress of the School on 26.11.1989; however respondent no.7-Sri Satya Ranjan Acharjee was appointed as Assistant teacher on 8.7.1988. Thereafter the appellant-Rita Sarkar obtained requisite qualification and her appointment was validated by the Authorities on 2.7.1990. 4. Respondent no. 7 remained absent w.e.f. 1.12.1991. In his place Sh. Sanjam Bhomic was appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 8.4.1992. Same position continued for quite some time; ultimately respondent no.7 was dismissed vide Resolution dated 13.2.1994, passed by the managing committee of the School, from the post of Assistant Teacher. 5. However, there was sanction of grant-in-aid vide order dated 18.12.1995 as per the order passed by the Bodo Autonomous Council and certain riders were put of possessing minimum qualification on/or before 31.12.1990. It was claimed that the appellant was qualified to be appointed as head master of the said school in terms of the conditions imposed by the Assam Elementary Education (provincialisation) Rules 1977. 6. Respondent no.7 preferred a Writ Petition bearing Civil Rule No. 2261 of 1995 before the High Court at Gauhati, praying for regularisation of his services. High Court vide its order dated 19.11.1996 disposed of the writ petition observing that his services were discontinued w.e.f. 15.2.1994 and permitted to file representation. 7. Thereafter as per the order passed by the High Court, representation was filed on 18.1.1997 by respondent no.7 to the competent authority and the competent authority directed his reinstatement as first teacher of the School. The order passed by the competent authority on 18.1.1997 was questioned by the appellant by filing Writ Petition being Civil Rule No. 831 of 1997 and by way of interim order functioning of the appellant as head mistress was protected. Ultimately the respondent authorities vide communication dated 19.12.1997 approved the appointment of respondent no. The order passed by the competent authority on 18.1.1997 was questioned by the appellant by filing Writ Petition being Civil Rule No. 831 of 1997 and by way of interim order functioning of the appellant as head mistress was protected. Ultimately the respondent authorities vide communication dated 19.12.1997 approved the appointment of respondent no. 7 as head master of the said School. As there were two claimants to the post of headmaster of the said school, the competent authority vide letter dated 30.12.1997 directed the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Rangia to make an enquiry with respect to rival claims and ascertain the facts. The order passed in favour of respondent no. 7 on 19.12.1992 was kept in abeyance. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and a report dated 18.3.1998 was submitted. The appellant was provisionally allowed to function as headmaster of the School and the appointment of respondent no. 7 was withdrawn in terms of the letter dated 29.5.1998. Said order passed against respondent no. 7 was questioned by him by way of filing writ petition being Civil Rule No. 3660 of 1998 before the High Court. 8. Both the writ applications filed by respondent no. 7 as well as by the appellant were heard together by the learned Single Judge and vide common judgment and order dated 10.8.1999 dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no. 7 and the petition filed by the appellant was disposed of as effect of order dated 18.1.1997 stood wiped of in view of the subsequent action taken by the Authority on 22.6.1998. 9. The respondent no.7 filed Writ Appeal No. 356 of 1999 as against the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge on 10.08.1999 whereby his writ petition was dismissed, the Division Bench of the High Court at Gauhati on 12.05.2003 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and the order dated 22.6.1998 passed by the Authority as well as the enquiry report dated 18.3.1998. 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court passed on 12.05.2003 in the writ appeal, the appellant has filed the present appeal in this Court and vide order dated 15.9.2003, the notice was issued to respondents. 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court passed on 12.05.2003 in the writ appeal, the appellant has filed the present appeal in this Court and vide order dated 15.9.2003, the notice was issued to respondents. In pursuance thereof a postal communication has been received from the office of the Deputy Inspector of the Schools on 16.10.2003, in which it has been mentioned that respondent no. 7 has left the school without information to the concerned authority and thereafter respondent no. 7 has opened his self LP school and is a headmaster of this self school till date. As such it was submitted that respondent no. 7 was not entitled to get any relief or claim to be as headmaster of the said School. As he has left the school and abondoned the services. 11. The facts stated by the Deputy Inspector of the Schools have not been traversed in the reply filed by the respondent no.7. None is present on his behalf to contest the petition. Hence we rely on said statement made in reply of Deputy Inspector of Schools. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, we restore the order passed by the Single Judge, more so in view of the subsequent event that has taken place and in case Rita Sarkar is presently holding the post of headmistress, she will continue to be headmistress. In case someone else is continuing as headmaster/ headmistress that person shall continue as headmaster/headmistress. 13. The appeal accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order. No costs.