Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6667/2010 on 28 July, 2025
GAHC010107762010
2021:GAU-AS:15135
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
WP(C) No. 6667/2010
1. Shri Debdut Nath,
S/o Late Chinta Haran Nath,
Resident of Village-Bongaigaon, Ward No.8,
PO-Bongaigaon, Dist.-Bongaigaon, Assam,
Working as Assistant Teacher of
Vivekananda Vidyapeth M.E. School,
Bongaigaon.
2. Shri Nadul Chandra Dey,
S/o Late Radha Binod Dey,
Resident of Vill & PO-Bongaigaon, Dist.-Bongaigaon,
Assam,
Working as Assistant Teacher of
New Bongaigaon M.E. School, Bongaigaon.
......Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Through the Commissioner & Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Finance Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
3. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam,
Kahilipara, Guwahati-19.
4. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Bongaigaon, PO-Bongaigaon,
Dist.-Bongaigaon, Assam.
5. The Treasury Officer,
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 1 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
Bongaigaon, PO-Bongaigaon,
Dist.-Bongaigaon, Assam.
......Respondents.
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
For the Petitioner No.1 : Ms. I. Das. ……Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Bora, SC. Elem. Edn.
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 28th July, 2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Heard Ms. I. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 and also
heard Mr. P.K. Bora, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary)
Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two
petitioners, namely, Debdut Nath and Nadul Chandra Dey, have prayed
for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to adjust/re-adjust the
services of the petitioners against the existing vacant posts as shown and
proposed in the proposal submitted in SIU(Finance) format vide
Annexure-10A by granting necessary approval from the Finance
Department, Govt. of Assam without any break of their services by
clarifying/holding that the order of restrainment dated 19.01.2009 passed
in WP(C) No.5569/2002 and batch, vide Annexure-12, is not
binding/applicable in case of the petitioners whose services were
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 2 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
regularized way back in the year 2006 vide order dated 30.01.2006 and
also direct the respondent authorities to pay the petitioners their arrear
salary w.e.f. June, 1994 till the date and onward current salary regularly
and further to grant other service benefits which the petitioners are
legally entitled to and also for quashing and setting aside the condition
attached to the impugned order dated 30.01.2021 to the effect that the
petitioner would get prospective effect from 01.11.2020 only and that he
cannot claim any benefit whatsoever in respect of his first service
rendered by him prior to 01.11.2020.
3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition is
briefly stated as under:-
“The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher in M.E.
School against newly created posts in the time scale of pay vide
individual appointment orders dated 28.02.1994, issued by the
District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Bongaigaon, as per
approval of the Advisory Board and on the basis of their
performance in the selection process and they used to work as
Assistant Teachers since their date of joining till date, continuously.
Initially, they have received salary for a period of 3 months i.e.
upto May, 1994. But suddenly the salary of all the teachers
including the petitioners, who were appointed against the posts
created by the Government vide order dated 16.11.1991, were
stopped on the ground that their appointments were found to be
illegal as per the Monoharan Committee Report. However, their
services were not terminated and they continued to be served
without any salary. Thereafter, a Cabinet decision was taken in its
meeting held on 24.02.2005 to regularize the services of those
teachers who were illegally and irregularly appointed as per theWP(C) 6667/2010 Page 3 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135Monoharan Committee Report after screening by the Task
Force/District Level Screening Committee, in phase manner and as
per the said Cabinet decision and after screening by the
Departmental Screening Committee/Task Force, the services of 125
nos. of teachers including the petitioners were regularized with
effect from their respective date of joining against the vacant posts
as per the list enclosed therein in the scale of pay of Rs.3130-
6060/- p.m. plus other admissible allowances, vide order dated
30.01.2006 of the respondent No.3. The name of the petitioner
No.1 appeared at Sl.No.36 and his service was proposed to be
adjusted at Vivekananda Vidyapeeth M.E. School vide one Ranjit
Chakraborty, Assistant Teacher (Retd.) and the name of the
petitioner No.2 appeared at Sl.No.79 and his service was proposed
to be adjusted at New Bongaigaon M.E. School vide one Gouranga
Das, Assistant Teacher (Retd.). Accordingly, both the petitioners
joined their new place of posting on 15.02.2006 and 10.02.2006,
respectively and the same was informed by the respective
Headmaster to the DEEO, Bongaigaon. But the respondent
authorities did not pay any response and then the petitioners have
filed one application under the Right to Information Act and in
response to the same, vide letter dated 22.07.2008 the Director of
Elementary Education (DEE), Assam, informed the petitioner No.2
that as their particulars in the proposal submitted by the
respondent No.4 are found not correct, the proposal for their
adjustment could not be sent to the Government along with other
6 teachers at that time. But subsequently, the correct particulars of
the petitioners have been received and the SIU proposal has
already been sent to the Government vide DEE, Assam’s letter
No.EMA.8/2005/Pt./297 dated 02.06.2008 and it was furtherWP(C) 6667/2010 Page 4 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135informed that for the readjustment of the services of the
petitioners against the vacant posts, the proposal of SIU(Finance)
format has been sent to the Government for approval and the
matter is under consideration of the Government.
Thereafter, the State Information Commissioner, Assam, vide
order dated 20.06.2009 has directed the Secretary to the Govt. of
Assam, Education Department to expedite the approval for
readjustment of the petitioners and pursue the matter with the
Finance Department urgently, so that the petitioners get justice
quickly. Thereafter, the case of the petitioners for readjustment
and for payment of salary has been processed by the Government.
But the respondent authorities are not passing any order for
readjustment of their services against the vacancies proposed by
the respondent No.4 on the plea of the interim order dated
19.01.2009, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5569/2002 and
batch, by which the State respondents were restrained from
regularizing illegally and irregularly appointed teachers as reported
by the Monoharan Committee, although the services of the
petitioners were regularized by the authority way back in the year
2006. But the respondent No.1 verbally told the petitioners that if
the Hon’ble Court directs and clarifies that the said order of
restrainment is not applicable to their case, then they will consider
the readjustment of the services of the petitioners. Being
aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the
present petition.”
4. The respondent No.1, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam,
Department of School Education, filed one affidavit-in-opposition, wherein
a stand has been taken that the petitioners failed to substantiate their
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 5 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
claim that they were appointed pursuant to an interview and in fact, the
petitioners were appointed without any selection process by the then
District Elementary Education Officer, Bongaigaon and they were
appointed in excess of posts during the period from 1991 to 30.11.1996
and the same were enquired by the one man enquiry committee headed
by Shri S. Manoharan, IAS and that the petitioners as well as many such
teachers were appointed across the State without following proper
Government procedure against non-existent posts and which came to the
notice of the Government when it was detected that the number of
incumbents were more than the total sanctioned/budget allotted posts
and several illegal/irregularly appointed teachers have filed various writ
petitions before this Court and this Court was pleased to direct the
Education Department to take a call in the matter of regularization of
irregular/illegal teachers and accordingly, in terms of the order dated
02.03.2010 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1048/2004, the Education
Department placed the matter of regularization of illegal/irregular
teachers before the Cabinet in its meeting held on 26.02.2011 and
thereafter, the Education Department proposed to constitute a screening
committee to examine the validity of the appointments of the teachers
who are claiming regularization and salary and accordingly, vide O.M.
dated 15.11.2011, a screening committee was constituted to examine the
cases of the irregularly/illegally appointed teachers so as to take a
decision for their regularization and entitlement of salary or otherwise
and with a view to examine the selection procedure, the nature of
appointment, status of posts, working status, status of salaries, academic
qualification etc., the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, had
invited applications from these irregularly/illegally appointed teachers
during the year 1991-2001 throughout the State by an advertisement
dated 01.02.2012 and 04.02.2012 in local newspapers and pursuant to
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 6 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
the said advertisement, the irregularly/illegally appointed teachers
throughout the State, have sent their applications and after preliminary
examination at Directorate level, total 12085 nos. of applications were
found in order and the same were submitted to the Government for final
verification. Thereafter, the Elementary Education Department vide
notification dated 04.06.2014 had constituted 5 screening committees
headed by the Divisional Commissioners concerned and Principal
Secretaries of Sixth Schedule area and BTC to examine these applications
and the report of the preliminary committees, namely, (i) Upper Assam
Division, (ii) Lower Assam Division, (iii) North Assam Division, (iv) Hills &
Barak Valley Division and (v) BTC area.
5. Thereafter, the Divisional Screening Committees verified all the
applications and submitted their reports with recommendations for
further action of the Government. But due to complaints from various
corner, reverification was conducted and thereafter, reports were
submitted with the following categories of teachers:-
1. Category 1 – Recommended and working till date – 136.
2. Category 2 – Recommended but discontinued jobs – 250.
3. Category 3 – Not recommended but working till date – 8470.
4. Category 4 – Not recommended and discontinued jobs – 2900.
Thereafter, a decision was taken to regularize the services of the
teachers who fall under the Category 1 and subsequently, their services
have been regularized and with regard to the 2nd category of teachers,
who were recommended but discontinued their services, the question of
their regularization of service and payment of salary does not arise since
they are not in service. Similarly, in the case of 4th category of teachers,
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 7 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
since they have discontinued, consideration of their cases for
regularization and payment of salary does not arise and in respect of 3rd
category of teachers, who were not recommended but still in service, the
State respondents had decided to issue individual show-cause notices to
all the 8470 candidates and 766 including 752 terminated teachers of
Dhemaji and Lakhimpur districts indicating therein to show the reason as
to why their appointments are not deemed to be illegal/irregular and as
to why they should not be removed from service for being appointed in
violation of the existent Rules and thereafter, as per instruction of the
Education Minister, the Department had proposed to take a decision to
solve the problem of those irregularly/illegally appointed teachers subject
to approval of the Cabinet. Accordingly, a departmental committee was
formed by the Government to verify salary status and qualification of
those Category 3 illegal/irregular appointees. Thereafter, the committee
has prepared three lists –
List-1: The teachers who have received salaries at some point
of time and having JBT/D.El.Ed. (1574 teachers)
List-2: The teachers who received salaries at some point of
time but not having JBT/D.El.Ed. (2960 teachers)
List-3: The teachers who neither received salaries nor
qualified the training i.e. JBT/D.El.Ed. (7250 teachers)
And thereafter, a Cabinet Memorandum was prepared for the
following reasons-
(a) Approval was sought for accommodating those teachers who
have received salary upto 2007 and have successfully
completed the Junior Basic Training/D.El.Ed. course byWP(C) 6667/2010 Page 8 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135certain personal/supernumerary posts with prospective effect
from the date of approval of the Cabinet. Those posts will
cease to exist as and when the incumbent retires from
service (i.e., List-1 as Teachers).
(b) Approval was sought for those who received salary upto
2007, but have not acquired the professional qualification
before 2011, their jobs can only be accommodated as tutor
with prospective effect from the date of approval of the
Cabinet (i.e., List-2 as Tutors).
And accordingly, the Cabinet gave its approval on 07.10.2020 and
that the petitioners fall under the category of illegal/irregular appointees
and therefore, they have participated in the screening process by
submitting their documents and upon verification, the names of the
petitioners find place in Category 3 i.e. not recommended but working till
date and as per the aforesaid Cabinet decision, the petitioners, who fulfill
the aforesaid conditions, were offered fresh appointment with prospective
effect from the date of the Cabinet decision according to their
qualification and the names of the petitioners are found in the screening
committee’s List-2 under Bongaigaon district and that the petitioners
being untrained, were accommodated under Tutor category and they
accepted the appointment and joined their respective schools. The
petitioner No.1, Debdut Nath was accommodated as Tutor in Shantidham
Kalibari M.E. School and the petitioner No.2 Nadul Chandra Dey was
accommodated as Tutor in Netaji Vidyaniketan M.E. School and the
appointment letters were issued with a condition that they were
accommodated as Tutor on purely temporary basis in the fixed salary of
Rs.10,800/- as per the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of
Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 with
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 9 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
prospective effect from 01.11.2020 only and he/she cannot claim any
benefit whatsoever in respect of past services rendered by him/her prior
to 01.11.2020 and both the petitioners have accepted the
accommodation order and the terms and conditions stated therein and
joined as Tutor in their respective schools and the petitioner No.1 joined
on 05.08.2021 and the petitioner No.2 joined on 01.02.2021 and they
have been receiving salaries since then and the petitioner No.2, Nadul
Chandra Dey has retired from service on 28.02.2022 and as the
petitioners were accommodated as Tutor in fixed pay of Rs.10,800/-
under illegal/irregular category, there is no provision of pension or other
pensionary benefits to fixed pay employees as per Government rules and
procedures. Under such circumstances, it is contended that there is no
merit in this petition and the same may be dismissed.
6. The petitioner No.1, namely, Debdut Nath had filed his reply to the
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.1, wherein he stated
that there is neither any categorical statement or averment either
disputing or accepting the contentions of the petitioner in regard to the
Cabinet decision dated 24.02.2005, where decision was taken to
regularize the services of the illegally and irregularly appointed teachers
after screening in phased manner and accordingly, 125 nos. of teachers
were regularized on 30.01.2006, where the present petitioner was also
regularized and his name reflected under Sl.No.36 in the published list
and accordingly, joined service and nor there is any statement clarifying
their stand on the allegations contained in the writ petition in that regard
and that there is not even a single substantial or specific reply to any of
the grievances against the official respondents set forth in the writ
petition and hence, the same may be construed to have been admitted
by the respondent authority and from the affidavit-in-opposition of the
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 10 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
respondent No.1 and having not been traversed, the contention of the
petitioners as set forth in the writ petition, following facts deemed to
have been admitted:-
(i) The Monoharan Committee was constituted much earlier to look
into the matter of appointed teachers which submitted its report
and the petitioner was one of the teachers who was appointed in
excess of the posts during the period from 01.03.1991 to
30.11.1996.
(ii) The Cabinet had taken a decision on 24.02.2005 to regular the
services of 125 ME/MEM/MV working teachers of Bongaigaon
district with effect from the date of joining against the vacant posts
in the scale of pay of Rs.3130-6600/- p.m. plus other allowances as
admissible under the rules and that the teachers concerned to be
eligible for salary from the date of joining after regularization in the
vacant posts.
(iii) Pursuant to the said Cabinet decision, the Director of Elementary
Education passed an order in that respect on 30.01.2006 along
with the list of 125 teachers so regularized, the petitioner’s name
being in the list of 125 teachers under Sl.No.36.
(iv) The petitioner No.1 was posted in Vivekananda Vidyapeeth M.E.
School but when he joined there, he found a teacher was already
working and this is how the question of adjustment arose and
therefore, on 15.07.2009, the District Elementary Education Officer,
Bongaigaon, submitted SIU for fresh proposal for readjustment of
the petitioner in the Shantidham Kalibari M.E. School, Bongaigaon
against the post of Shishu Ranjan Kar, Assistant Teacher (Retd.)
and the same was sent to the Director of Elementary Education.
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 11 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
(v) The Director of Elementary Education regretted the passing of any
order in pursuance thereof on the plea of an interim order dated
19.01.2009 that was passed in WP(C) No.5569/2002, however, in
2012 the said writ petition, wherein the interim order was passed
has been disposed of, but even then the petitioner was not given
any posting as per the fresh proposal dated 15.07.2009.
And that the claim of the petitioner is a genuine one and the same
has been neglected by the respondents concerned for a long period of
time and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition.
7. Ms. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
petitioner was preferred by two petitioners, yet she has the instruction to
appear for the petitioner No.1 only. Ms. Das, vehemently submits that the
order dated 19.01.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5569/2002
would not stand in the way as the services of the petitioners were already
regularized. The case of the petitioner is only for readjustment as his
service which had already been regularized and that though the petitioner
was subsequently appointed as Tutor and he had accepted the same on
account of the necessity and on account of absence of bargaining power,
yet, in fact the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the salary and other
service benefits since the time of his adjustment and regularization.
Further, Ms. Das pointed out that the statement and averment made by
the petitioner in the writ petition, deemed to have been admitted, as the
same were not specifically traversed in the affidavit-in-opposition and
under such circumstance also, the petitioner is entitled to readjustment of
his service and his salary and therefore, Ms. Das has contended to allow
this petition.
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 12 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
8. In support of her submission, Ms. Das has referred the following
decisions:-
(i) Hindustan Times & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.,
reported in (2003) 1 SCC 591;
(ii) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Limited & Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr.,
reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156;
(iii) Nur Jamal Mazumder & Anr. v. State of Assam &
Ors. [WP(C) No.4791/2014, decided on 30.01.2024];
(iv) Bimal Ch. Mondal & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.
[WP(C) No.5236/2010, decided on 15.02.2017]; and
(v) Bishnu Ranjan Kalita & Ors. v. State of Assam &
Ors. [WP(C) No.6681/2010, decided on 04.05.2017].
9. Per contra, Mr. Bora, learned standing counsel, Education
(Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4
submits that the petitioners were illegally and irregularly appointed
teachers without following any procedure prescribed under the law and
therefore, they have appeared in the screening committee and thereby
they have forfeited their rights for readjustment and that a Cabinet
Memorandum was prepared to regularize the irregularly appointed
teachers and that the petitioners have not undergone the Basic Training
courses for which they have been appointed as Tutors and that the
petitioner No.2 has already retired from service and under such
circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and therefore, Mr. Bora
has contended to dismiss the same.
10. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the
parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents
placed on record and also perused the Cabinet decision dated 24.02.2005
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 13 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
and also gone through the interim order dated 19.01.2009 passed in
WP(C) No.5569/2002.
11. As discussed herein above, the contention made in the writ petition
by the petitioners have not specifically traversed by the respondent
authority in its affidavit-in-opposition and as such, the contention so
made in the writ petition deemed to have been admitted by the State
respondents, in view of catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Reliance on the judgment to apply the doctrine of non-traverse is made
to the case of (1) Controller of Court of Ward, Kolhapur & Anr.
V. G.N. Gharpade reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court page 627,
and also on a decision passed by (2) Gobinda Chandra Das v. State
of West Bengal reported in 1989 (2) CAL LT (HC) 63. Again in the
case of Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar reported in (2003) 8 SCC
673), Hon’ble Supreme has highlighted the obligations under Order
VIII Rules 3 and 5 regarding admissions and denials, holding that
vague denials could constitute admissions. From the contention made in
the writ petition and also from the submission of Ms. Das, learned
counsel for the petitioner No.1, following facts emerged, which remained
non-traversed by the State respondents:-
(i) The Monoharan Committee was constituted much earlier to look
into the matter of appointed teachers which submitted its report
and the petitioner was one of the teachers who was appointed in
excess of the posts during the period from 01.03.1991 to
30.11.1996.
(ii) The Cabinet had taken a decision on 24.02.2005 to regularize the
services of 125 ME/MEM/MV working teachers of Bongaigaon
district with effect from the date of joining against the vacant posts
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 14 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
in the scale of pay of Rs.3130-6600/- p.m. plus other allowances as
admissible under the rules and that the teachers concerned to be
eligible for salary from the date of joining after regularization in the
vacant posts.
(iii) Pursuant to the said Cabinet decision, the Director of Elementary
Education passed an order in that respect on 30.01.2006 along
with the list of 125 teachers so regularized, the petitioner’s name
being in the list of 125 teachers under Sl.No.36.
(iv) The petitioner No.1 was posted in Vivekananda Vidyapeeth M.E.
School but when he joined there, he found a teacher was already
working and this is how the question of adjustment arose and
therefore, on 15.07.2009, the District Elementary Education Officer,
Bongaigaon, submitted SIU for fresh proposal for readjustment of
the petitioner No.1 in the Shantidham Kalibari M.E. School,
Bongaigaon against the post of Shishu Ranjan Kar, Assistant
Teacher (Retd.) and the same was sent to the Director of
Elementary Education.
(v) The Director of Elementary Education regretted the passing of any
order in pursuance thereof on the plea of an interim order dated
19.01.2009 that was passed in WP(C) No.5569/2002, however, in
2012 the said writ petition, wherein the interim order was passed
has been disposed of, but even then the petitioner was not given
any posting as per the fresh proposal dated 15.07.2009.
(vi) The order of the Director of Elementary Education, dated
30.01.2006, by which 125 teachers of Bongaigaon district were
regularized, including petitioner No.1- Shri Debdut Nath, whose
name figured in Sl. No. 36, is still in force.
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 15 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
12. Further, it appears that the petitioner No.1, Debdut Nath was
appointed as Assistant Teacher against the newly created post vide
Government order dated 16.11.1991 on 28.04.1994 and the petitioner
has received salary for 3 months and his salary was stopped as per report
of Monoharan Committee in the month of June 1994. But, subsequently,
the Cabinet had taken a decision to regularize the services of illegally
appointed teachers after screening in phased manner on 24.02.2005 and
pursuant to said Cabinet decision, 125 nos. of teachers were regularized
in which the name of the petitioner No.1 find mentioned at Sl. No.36 and
were adjusted in Vivekananda Vidyapeeth M.E. School and the petitioner
accordingly joined on 15.02.2006 and he found another person in the
said post and thereafter, he filed representation for readjustment against
existing vacant post and further, it appears that vide letter dated
05.04.2007, the respondent No.3 communicated the respondent No.4
that his service has already been regularized. Thereafter, fresh proposal
was sent by the DEEO, Bongaigaon for readjustment of the petitioner
No.1 in Shantidham Kalibari M.E. School.
13. But, said proposal was not taken into account in view of the order
passed in WP(C) No.5569/2002 on 19.01.2009. Notably, the order dated
19.01.2009, by which the State-Respondents of the said petition were
from regularization of service of illegally and irregularly appointed
teachers would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner Debdut
Nath, in as much as much before the said order came to be passed on
30.01.2006, the service of the petitioner No.1 was regularized by the
Director Secondary Education, Assam.
14. That being so, denial of readjustment on the ground of the order
being passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5569/2002 vide order dated
19.01.2009, wherein the present petitioner was not a party also, is illegal
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 16 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
and arbitrary and all subsequent act of the respondent authorities,
compelling the petitioner again to participate in the regularization process
of illegally/irregularly appointed teachers, and his subsequent
appointment as Tutor is also illegal and arbitrary.
15. I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by Ms. Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 and I find sufficient cause in her
submission and the proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned
cases also strengthened her submission.
16. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly,
the same stands allowed. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent
authorities are directed to readjust the services of the petitioner No.1,
against the existing vacant post without any break in their services and to
pay his salary w.e.f. June 1994 till date.
17. Consequent upon readjustment of the petitioner No.1, all
consequential service benefits, which the petitioner No.1 is legally entitled
to, shall be extended to him.
18. The condition attached to the impugned order dated 30.01.2021 to
the effect that the petitioner would get prospective effect from
01.11.2020, only and that he cannot claim any benefit whatsoever in
respect of past services rendered by him prior to 01.11.2020 stands set-
aside and quashed for being unjust and in view of violation of equality
doctrine contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is now well
settled that every executive action which operates to the prejudice of any
person must have the sanction of law. The executive cannot interfere
with the rights and liabilities of any person unless the legality thereof is
supportable in any court of law. [See – Hindustan Times (supra)].
The petitioner had no choice, but to accept the said condition as part of
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 17 of 18
2021:GAU-AS:15135
his employment. There is gross disparity between the State Respondents
and the petitioner. The said conditions are wholly unconscionable. It has
been entered into between parties between whom there is gross
inequality of bargaining power and consequently it is against public good
and being opposed to public policy; and as such void, arbitrary and
illegal. [see Brojo Nath Ganguly,(supra) and Hindustan Times
and Another(supra)].
19. The aforementioned exercise shall be carried out within a period of
3(three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the
same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from
today.
Sd/- Robin Phukan
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
WP(C) 6667/2010 Page 18 of 18
[ad_1]
Source link