Allowed

Dilip Robi Das and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Dec 2018WP(C)/6305/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Grade IV employees, sought placement before the High Power Committee (HPC) for regularization. The Court ordered the Director to verify a communication dated 01.10.2010 regarding their absence from interviews and direct a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Director of Secondary Education to verify the 01.10.2010 communication, decide on HPC placement, and notify petitioners within 3 months.

Dilip Robi Das and 4 Ors. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010123162012

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6305/2012

¶5

1:DILIP ROBI DAS and 4 ORS.

¶6

S/O- SHRI DEWKI RAM ROBI DAS, VILL.- BHUYANBARI PATHAR, P.O.CHETUAIKHAITY, DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

2: KALIA PATOR S/O- SHRI KOLESWAR PATOR VILL.- DAMAL P.O.- AZARBORI DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM.

¶8

3: HARISHANKAR PODDAR S/O- SHRI NISHI KANTA PODDAR VILL. NO. 2 BAHADOLONI P.O.- BARPAK DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM.

¶9

4: UBESWAR DEKA S/O- LT. BHABEN DEKA VILL.- MORAKALANG P.O. and DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM.

¶10

5: RAMESH BARUA S/O- LT. CHANDRA NATH BARUA VILL.- LELABORI P.O.- BARIBANDHA DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS

¶11

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS.

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

REP.. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY., EDUCATION DEPTT., ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶14

2:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19.

¶15

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS MORIGAON DIST. CIRCLE MORIGAON.

¶16

4:THE MEMBER SECY. AND MEMBERS OF HIGH POWER COMMITTEE DISPUR GHY- 6

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.G K THAKURIA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

B E F O R E

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶21

Date : 04-12-2018

¶22

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶23

Heard Ms. N S Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Assam.

¶24

The petitioners are all working as Grade IV employees in different schools of Morigaon district and it is their common grievance that at the time when the concerned schools, where they were working were regularized, the name of the petitioners stood dropped from the employees considered for the purpose of provincialisation. The State respondent authorities take a stand that in the year 2004, an open advertisement was issued inviting claims from all such dropped employees those names were not considered at the time of provincialisation. A further stand has been taken that the aforesaid exercise was a one-time exercise and if the petitioners had not availed the benefits of such

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

advertisement, no further consideration can be given to their respective cases.

¶27

To the aforesaid contention, Ms. NS Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioners states by referring to paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the particulars of the petitioners were sent before the authorities for a consideration at that relevant point of time, but inspite of it being so sent, due consideration was not given.

¶28

By the order dated 07.09.2018, the petitioners were required to file an affidavit providing the detailed particular by which their names and particulars were sent to the authorities of the Government of Assam for being considered as dropped employee. In response to such order, the affidavit dated 04.12.2018 has been field, wherein the communication dated 01.10.2010 from the Inspector of Schools Morigaon made to the Director of Secondary Education Assam has been enclosed. In the said communication, the Inspector of Schools states that he had been instructed by the Government to send the particulars of the dropped employees for verification of its genuineness and in response thereof, the Inspector had submitted the required particulars for necessary action.

¶29

It is further stated that the employees referred in the said communication were absent on the date of interview as they had not received the information letter in due time and the vacancy position statement was also not submitted. Accordingly by the said communication, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam was requested to look into the matter and do the needful. In the list of employees enclosed to the communication dated 01.10.2010, the name of the present petitioners find place. As there is a request by the Inspector of Schools to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to look into the aforesaid aspect that the petitioners could not appear for the interview as they were not informed in due time, we deem it appropriate that in the circumstance, it would be proper for the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to look into the aforesaid aspect and pass a reasoned order thereon.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to take up the communication dated 01.10.2010 of the Inspector of Schools, Morigaon and shall pass a reasoned order thereon as to whether the case of the petitioners are required to be placed before the High Power Committee. The Director, if on verification is of the view that the cases

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

of the petitioners are required to be placed before the High Power Committee, the same shall be done accordingly.

¶33

The aforesaid requirement of giving a due consideration and if necessary placing it before the High Power Committee be done within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

In doing so, the Director shall also give a hearing to the petitioners as well as the Headmasters of the concerned schools, allowing them to produce any relevant material that they may desire to produce to substantiate their claims.

¶35

This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Dilip Robi Das and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Robi Das and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipika Devi Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dr. Mrs. Vardhini Bhattacharjee Vs Vice-Chancellor, Indira Gandhi

Smti Kalpana Devi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Prabhat Ch Bora and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mrs. Malaya Bhattacharyya and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Dhubri Law College Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.