Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 263 (GAU)

Tagiu Tachu v. State Of A. P.

2022-03-14

ROBIN PHUKAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 5 (five) petitioners, namely, Shri Tagiu Tachu, Shri Rigio Turu, Shri Donik Sanjay, Shri Dana Taruj & Shri Nyapu Tamuk Tagak, have put to challenge the legality and validity of the Order No. ED/KD/SSA/BRC/CRC-8/2015-16/50, dated 25.06.2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Project Director, Kra-Daadi District Zamin, Camp Palin. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned Order, the petitioners were reverted back to their original post from Block Resource Centre Coordinator (hereinafter referred to as ‘BRCC’) and Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator (herein after referred to as ‘CRCC’), on the basis of U.O. notes, dated 05.06.2019 and 06.06.2019, of the respondents Nos. 6 and 7, who are the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of 18-Palin (ST) and 20Tali (ST) Assembly constituencies. The petitioners also put to challenge the Order No. ED/KD/SSA/BRC/CRC-8/2015-16/509, dated 11.07.2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Project Director, ISSE-Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan District Society, Kra-Daadi District Zamin, by which the private respondents No. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were allowed to function as BRCC/CRCC by superseding the petitioners. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated as under:- “The petitioners are Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Primary Regular Teacher (PRT), Assistant Teacher (AT) and Junior Teachers (JT) of Ka-Daadi District. The petitioner No. 1 was allowed to function as BRCC vide order dated 01.10.2013. The petitioner No. 2, was also holding the charge of BRCC, Pipsorong, since 2010. The petitioner No. 3 was allowed to function as CRCC, Palin and the petitioner No. 4 was allowed to function as CRCC vide order dated 02.07.2014. The petitioner No. 5 was allowed to serve as a CRCC, Tali. While the petitioners were functioning as BRCC and CRCC, then vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Project Director, Kra-Daadi District Zamin, Camp Palin, through the DDSE-cum-DPO, Kra Daadi District, Jamin, Camp Palin, reverted them back to their original posts, without providing them an opportunity of being heard and on the basis of U.O. notes dated 05.06.2019 & 06.06.2019 of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, who happens to be the local MLA of 18th Palin Assembly Constituency, Kra-Daadi District and 20th Tali Assembly Constituency of Kra-Daadi District. The petitioners then filed one representation on 01.07.2019, before the respondent authorities, but the same failed to yield any result. 6 & 7, who happens to be the local MLA of 18th Palin Assembly Constituency, Kra-Daadi District and 20th Tali Assembly Constituency of Kra-Daadi District. The petitioners then filed one representation on 01.07.2019, before the respondent authorities, but the same failed to yield any result. While the representation before the respondent authorities were pending for consideration, then vide order dated 11.07.2019, the respondent authorities have appointed private respondent Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, namely, Shri Margang Akam, Shri John Taksing, Shri Rido Magung, Shri Rigio Takung & Shri Pakyum Tai, respectively, to function as BRCC and CRCC in place of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, all the aforesaid private respondents are not eligible to hold the post as per guidelines and minutes of the Executive Meeting, dated 22.11.2011. Then on their enquiry, they came to know that on the basis of the U.O. notes of the local MLAs, respondent Nos. 6 & 7, the private respondents were appointed in place of the petitioners as a reward for supporting them in the Assembly Election, held on 11.04.2019, and as such, their appointment was not in public interest and on this count, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with as the same has been passed in flagrant violation of principle of natural justice and apparently the same is colourable exercise of power for collateral purposes and the same is exfacie-illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unfair, unreasonable. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 and to allow the petitioners to function as BRCC and CRCC in place of the private respondents.” 3. It appears that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have submitted their affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is stated that the posts of BRCC and CRCC are temporary intervention of ISSE (earlier SSA), wherein, PRT/TGT are randomly posted to function as per need because there is no status or financial benefit in the BRCC or CRCC and the petitioners were also allowed to function as BRCC and CRCC on temporary basis as per requirement from time to time and on their accepting terms and conditions of their appointment and as such, they have no right to stake any claim beyond the terms and conditions, which are- (i) The appointment is made at his/her own time of pay scale as AT/JT. (ii) The post of BRCC/CRCC is not a promotional post, but cadre of AT/JT. (iii) The post of BRCC/CRCC is interchangeable post and at any time he/she will be reverted back to his/her original post without assigning any reason thereof. And as such, the petitioners have no substantial, indefeasible or any legal right to claim for permanent posting as BRCC and CRCC and they have no Locus Standito file the present petition as they suffered no legal injury and that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were transferred to Upper Subansiri District and placed under the disposal of DDSE, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh, and that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are regular teacher as TGT and PRT and the petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 are contractual service holder under ISSE and that the petitioners are admittedly good and knowledgeable teachers and their respective schools suffers academically due to lack of good quality and knowledgeable teachers like the petitioners and as such, their posting back to their respective post for classroom teaching is required for quality education and better future of the students and that the private respondents are having very good academic record and they are very sincere and dedicated employee of the department and hence, they are appointed in public interest and, therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition as the impugned order suffers from no any infirmity or illegality. 4. I have heard Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. 5. Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, at the instance of the local MLAs and it suffers from manifest illegality and impropriety. It is further submitted that the private respondents are also appointed at the instance of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 for helping them in Assembly Election and that the private respondents are not at all qualified to be appointed as BRCC and CRCC and, therefore, Mr. Garam, contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the petitioners to continue as BRCC and CRCC. Mr. Garam also referred one case law of this Court in Jibeswar Thakuria & Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2004 (1) GLT 347 to make good of his submission. Garam, contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the petitioners to continue as BRCC and CRCC. Mr. Garam also referred one case law of this Court in Jibeswar Thakuria & Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2004 (1) GLT 347 to make good of his submission. 6. On the other hand, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, submits that the petitioners were allowed to work as BRCC and CRCC purely on temporary basis and the authority has the right to revert them to their original posts without affording an opportunity of being heard to them as the aforesaid post are not substantive posts and as such compliance of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not required to be complied with. Mr. Jamoh further submits that the petitioners suffered from no legal injury as the post of CRCC and BRCC carried no financial benefit or any other benefit and as such, the petitioners have no locus to file this petition under Article under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not at all maintainable and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and also the documents placed on record and I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. 8. It appears that the petitioners were admittedly allowed to function as BRCC and CRCC in their respective places of posting and the said post are not substantive posts, rather they are interchangeable and they have not been provided with any financial incentives or any other benefit for working as such. The posts to which they have allegedly been reverted back belong to the same cadre. As per terms of their appointment, they were appointed purely on temporary basis and without assigning any reason or without affording an opportunity of being heard, they can be reverted to their original post of TGT or PRT or AT. The averment, made in this regard in the affidavit-in-opposition is not disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply to the same. Thus, apparently the petitioners have suffered from no legal injury or any other injury as submitted by Mr. T. Jamoh. The submission so advanced by Mr. The averment, made in this regard in the affidavit-in-opposition is not disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply to the same. Thus, apparently the petitioners have suffered from no legal injury or any other injury as submitted by Mr. T. Jamoh. The submission so advanced by Mr. T. Jamoh is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, rather Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly admitted the aforesaid factual position. 9. Since the petitioners have admittedly not suffered from any legal injury or any other injury and since no terms of their appointment to the posts of BRCC/CRCC have been violated, and since the petitioners were reverted to their original posts, which are interchangeable, and on expiry of their terms of deputation, as is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, to the considered opinion of this court non compliance of the principle of natural justice would be of no consequence. And as such, the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, No. ED/KD/SSA/ BRC/CRC-8/2015-16/50, issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Project Director, Kra-Daadi District Zamin, cannot be said to have suffered from any infirmity warranting interference of this court. 10. However, the submissions of Mr. T. Garam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the private respondents are appointed at the instance of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 for being helped the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in the Assembly Election, though denied by the state respondent, appears to have some substance. The affidavit-in-opposition of the state respondents left this court unimpressed that the some of the private respondents possessed the requisite qualification for being appointed as BRCC/CRCC as provided in paragraph No.12 of the Minutes of the 9th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SSARAJYA MISSION SOCIETY, ARUNACHAL PRADESH. The U.O. note (Annexure-5 series of the petition) also speaks volumes in this regard. And the ratio laid down in the case of Jibeswar Thakuria (supra), referred him, also fortified his submissions. It is to be noted here that in the said case order of transfer and posting of civil servants at the political intervention and on the recommendation of MLA and Ministers is deprecated and set aside, as the same is made in violation of the policy guidelines of transfer of the civil servants. 11. Mr. It is to be noted here that in the said case order of transfer and posting of civil servants at the political intervention and on the recommendation of MLA and Ministers is deprecated and set aside, as the same is made in violation of the policy guidelines of transfer of the civil servants. 11. Mr. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted during hearing that at least a direction may be given to the State respondents to enquire about the qualification of the private respondents for being appointed as BRCC/CRCC, to which, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, also fairly accede to. 12. In view of the above, this instant writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the State respondents shall enquire about the qualification of the private respondents No. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, for being appointed as BRCC and CRCC and to do the needful in accordance with law if the same is found to be not done not in accordance with law. The above exercise has to be carried out within a period of 1 (one) months from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the State respondent authorities. The parties have to bear their own costs.