Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 431 (GAU)

Aktara Begum v. State Of Assam

2023-04-20

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2023
JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. H. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf o the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The petitioners before this Court are members belonging to the Managing Committee of Haidubi Rampur Satra Boys MEM as well as the guardians of the students of the locality who had submitted representations to the respondent authorities on 01.02.2020 and 30.08.2020 with a prayer not to allow the respondent No.5 to join the said school who was transferred by the Director of Elementary Education Department, Assam vide an order dated 22.01.2020. 3. The allegation so made as would appear from a perusal of the representation dated 01.02.2020 is that the respondent No.5 is involved to massive corruption and misconduct for which the respondent No.5 was transferred from one school to another. It was alleged in the representation that the respondent No.5 was involved in massive corruption and illegality in regard to finance and mid-day meal for which the respondent No.5 was transferred. The said representation was submitted to the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon. Subsequent thereto, after a passage of almost 7 months, another representation was submitted with a prayer not to give effect to the order of transfer dated 22.01.2020 and to transfer the respondent No.5 to any other school. 4. This Court made a specific query upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as to what is the basis on which the allegation has been made in the representation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to a News Article published in a Daily Newspaper on 18th of June, 2019. As the reasons behind submission of the representation were on the basis of an unverified Newspaper Article, this Court finds no reason to issue a mandamus upon the respondent authorities to conduct any enquiry or to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners. 5. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that the instant writ petition is listed along with another writ petition today, i.e. WP(C) No.2965/2021. The said writ petition was filed by one Ali Azam Hussain, the existing Headmaster of the said school. Noteworthy to mention that in both the writ petitions, the lawyers happens to be the same. The said writ petition was filed by one Ali Azam Hussain, the existing Headmaster of the said school. Noteworthy to mention that in both the writ petitions, the lawyers happens to be the same. Vide the order dated 12.01.2020, issued by the Director of Elementary Education Department the respondent No.5 was brought in place of the said Ali Azam Hussain and this very person, namely, Ali Azam Hussain has categorically mentioned in paragraph No.10 of the writ petition that the respondent No.5 never joined in the school and in fact he was not allowed to join in the school by the Managing Committee of the School for his past bad records wherefrom he was transferred from the said school. In paragraph No.10 of the said writ petition, it was further mentioned that the transfer and joining of the respondent No.5 was subjudiced before this Court in the present writ petition and this Court vide an order dated 12.01.2021 had directed to maintain status-quo. 6. From the above, therefore, it would be seen that not only the entire case of the petitioners herein is based upon an unverified News Article but it also appears not to be bonafide and seems to be done at the behest of the existing Headmaster of the school. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue the prerogative writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation and conduct an enquiry as regards the allegation made against the respondent No.5 in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. 8. The interim order passed on 12.01.2021 stands vacated. 9. Before parting with the record, this Court however observes that the respondent authorities shall take such appropriate steps as deemed necessary in the interest of the said school.