Gauhati High Court
Tamizuddin Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 21 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010115022023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/199/2023
TAMIZUDDIN AHMED
S/O- LT. ABDUL ALI, R/O- VILL- GARBHITOR, P.O. DHAMDHAMA, P.S.
BARAMA, DIST.- BAKSA, BTC (BTR), ASSAM, PIN- 781349.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION DEPT. (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6.
2:THE DIRECTOR
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPT.
KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 19.
4:THE SECRETARY
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTR)
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR, PIN- 783370, ASSAM.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTR)
KOKRAJHAR, PIN- 783370, ASSAM.
6:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
B.T.C. (BTR)
KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370.
7:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
BAKSA DISTRICT CIRCLE
BAKSA (BTR)
Page No.# 2/5
MUSHALPUR, PIN- 781372.
8:THE HEADMASTER
GARBHITOR HIGH SCHOOL
P.O. NIZDHAMDHAMA
PIN- 781349, DIST.- BAKSA
BTAD (BTR), ASSAM
For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Choudhury, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. K. Das, SC, Elementary Education
Ms. R. B. Bora, SC, BTC
– BEFORE –
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
21.01.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated
30.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1244/2023, whereby
the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The appellant approached the writ court challenging the validity of the
order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Director of Education, Bodoland
Territorial Council (hereinafter to be referred as “BTC”), whereby the claim of
the appellant for regularisation of his services as Assistant Teacher in 575 No.
Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School was rejected.
3. As per the appellant, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 575 No.
Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School on 07.02.1986 by the Managing
Committee of the said L.P. School, on honorary basis. It was also contended on
behalf of the appellant that during an inspection, the Sub-Inspector of Schools,
Page No.# 3/5
Barama Education Block, found the appellant serving in the said L.P. School and
the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, wrote to the Director of Education,
BTC, for creation of additional post of teacher in the said school to
accommodate the appellant in the said L.P. School. However, the said
recommendation made by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari has not
been carried out. Later on, the L.P. School in which the appellant was serving as
a teacher, was amalgamated with the Garbhitor High School, but despite that no
relief was granted to the appellant.
4. Later on, on a representation submitted by the appellant, the Inspector of
Schools, Baksa District Circle, Mushalpur, recommended to the Director of
Education, BTC, for provincialisation of the services of the appellant. However,
the Director of Education, BTC, rejected the said claim of the appellant vide
order dated 15.03.2022. Assailing the said rejection order dated 15.03.2022, the
appellant preferred a writ before the Single Bench. The learned Single Judge,
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has dismissed the writ petition
while observing as under:
“17. The Court in the case of Jahangir Alam and Others -Vs- State of Assam
and Others reported in 2003 (3) GLT 544 decided on 29.09.2003 have held that
the relevant Rules, namely, the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation)
Rules, 1977 as well as the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation)
Service Rules, 1982 specifically provides for appointment of Assistant Teachers
in provincialised L.P. school of the State by following the procedure of Direct
Recruitment after advertisement and selection, following the provisions of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that after provincialisation of
any such school, honorary Teachers appointed by the Managing Committee of
such provincialised schools cannot be regularized, since statutory
provincialisation Rules, namely, the Assam Elementary Education
(Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 as well as the Assam Secondary Education
(Provincialisation) Service Rules, 1982 does not empower the Managing
Committee to appoint any such Teacher in a provincialised school.
18. As such, even if it is assumed that a person has rendered a long period of
service by way of such appointment issued by the Managing Committee of the
School in violation of the statutory recruitment Rules in force, his/her service
Page No.# 4/5cannot be regularized, since the incumbent appointed in such manner does not
have any legal right for regularization.
19. Considering the above and the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Jahangir Alam (supra) and as it is found that the petitioner was appointed by
the President of the Managing Committee of the 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab
Lower Primary School, after the school was provincialised in the year 1977
under the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act,
1974 and the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977,
though the petitioner has rendered his service since 1986 as an honorary
Assistant Teacher in 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School, which
has now been amalgamated with Garbhitor High School, his service cannot be
considered for regularization, as the appointment of the petitioner is found to be
illegal being made in violation of the provisions of the Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, without any advertisement and selection in a
provincialised school of the State.
20. Considering the above, the communication of the Director of Education, BTC
under No. DE/BTC/Apptt-257/Pt-I/2017/751 dated 03.12.2021 as well as the
impugned Speaking Order under No. DE/BTC/Apptt-257/Pt-I/2017/795 dated
15.03.2022 does not call for any interference by this Court.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that while
appointing the appellant as an Assistant Teacher in the L.P. School in the year
1986, the procedure laid down under the law for appointing a teacher had not
been followed. However, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
looking to the fact that the appellant has been working as an Assistant Teacher
in the said L.P. School for quite a long period, i.e. more than 35 years on
honorary basis, his services are liable to be regularised.
6. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of State of Jharkand and Others vs. Kamal Prasad and Others., reported in
(2014) SCC 223 and has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying
on the decision rendered in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) , reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1, has held that working on ad hoc basis for a quite long period is
a good ground for regularisation of services.
Page No.# 5/5
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after going
through the material available on record, particularly, taking into consideration
the fact that the initial appointment of the appellant on the post of Assistant
Teacher was in violation of the procedure laid down under the law and his
appointment, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of
Jahangir Alam and Others vs. State of Assam and Others , reported in 2003 (3)
GLT 544, is liable to be treated in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
rightly refused to interfere with the order passed by the Director of Education,
BTC, whereby the claim of the appellant for regularisation of his services as
Assistant Teacher has been rejected.
8. So far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of
Jharkhand (supra) is concerned, the said decision is of no help to the appellant,
because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has never intended that an illegal
appointment made in violation of the procedure laid down under the law is also
liable to be regularised.
9. In view of the above discussion, this writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link