Disposed

Md. Abul Hossain v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Jan 2018WP(C)/989/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination and denial of financial assistance in a venture school. Court held writ jurisdiction unavailable for such disputes under Full Bench precedent, directing petitioner to approach the newly constituted Education Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach the appropriate Educational Tribunal for redressal of grievance.

Md. Abul Hossain Vs the State of Assam and 7… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010009232015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/989/2015

¶5

MD. ABUL HOSSAIN S/O LATE HAZI IBRAHIM ALI, VILL. DEBUTTAR HASDAHA PART-II, P.O. KACHARIHAT, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, CELL NO.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR

¶9

3:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶10

4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

¶11

5:THE DIST. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

6:THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF HAZIPARA LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL

¶14

7:MR. ABDUL BARI SHEIKH

¶15

8:SHRI BINOD KUMAR SING

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M A I HUSSAIN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONR-1 TO 4

¶18

ORDER BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶20

05.01.2018

¶21

Heard Mr. MAI Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶22

It is stated by the petitioner that he was the first Assistant Teacher of Hazipara LP School in the district of Dhubri (within the Dhubri Legislative Assembly Constituency) and was serving in it since 1.5.1985. But as he was not provided with financial assistance granted earlier by the State Govt., he approached this Court for the same in WP(C) 2986/2011 and the Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 30.3.2012 disposed of his said WP(C) 2986/2011 directing the Director of Elementary Education (DEE), Assam to pass a speaking order on the basis of inspection report, if any, regarding entitlement of financial assistance by the petitioner or by the present respondent No.8 for the financial year 2010-11 with the observation that before passing such order by the DEE, he shall hear both the petitioner and the respondent No.8.

¶23

Pursuant to the same, after making an enquiry and hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 22.10.2014, the DEE, Assam came to the finding that as the petitioner

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

was not attending the said school since 2006 and since his name was also not included in the DISE data, whereas the respondent No.8 was found to be continuously working in the school and his name appeared as the second teacher in the DISE format of the said school, accordingly, found the respondent No.8 suitable for the share of financial assistance for the year 2010-11 rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶26

In the meanwhile, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the School Managing Committee (SMC) of the school vide resolution dated 18.3.2007 and also changed the staff pattern of the school leaving aside the petitioner from it. In the present case, the petitioner has not only challenged the order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the DEE, Assam but, also challenged his termination order issued by the SMC adopted vide resolution dated 18.3.2007 as well as the staff pattern of the school dated 07.11.2010 wherein the name of the petitioner was not included. It is also alleged by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the SMC of the school in question has upgraded the respondent No.8 as the first Assistant Teacher of the school excluding the name of the petitioner. Petitioner also submitted before the Court that till date no such termination order has been served upon him nor any show-cause notice was issued to him prior to issuance of any such termination order in terms of the resolution of the SMC dated 18.3.2007.

¶27

It is to be noted herein that said Hazipara LP School is a venture educational institution and is regulated by the Assam Non-Government Educational Institution (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 and the Assam Non-Government Educational Institution (Regulation and Management) Rule, 2007.

¶28

A Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Gofur Mondal Vs State of Assam and others, reported in 2015 (2) GLT 337 have already determined that with regard to the seniority, suspension, termination of any such teaching and non-teaching staff of any such venture educational institution established under the provisions of the aforesaid 2006 Act and the 2007 Rules, the Writ Court is not the authority to decide such issues and as such, observed that the State Govt. in the Education Department should constitute Education Tribunal for redressal of such grievances of the employee of such venture schools. Accordingly, the State Govt. in the Education Department by its Notification dated 02.06.2016 constituted Education Tribunal in each of the districts of Assam to adjudicate the dispute of teaching as well as non-

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

teaching staff of such Non-Government Educational Institutions relating to disciplinary action and claim for provincialisation including the seniority etc., which are presided over by the District Judge/Additional District Judge of the concerned district.

¶31

In the present case, the impugned order dated 22.10.2014 was issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam in terms of the order dated 30.3.2012 passed in WP(C) 2986/2011, when there was no such Education Tribunal in the State with regard to redressal of grievances of the incumbents serving in such Non-Government Educational Institutions, which have now been constituted after the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Gofur Mondal (supra).

¶32

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may approach the appropriate Educational Tribunal for redressal of his grievance as alleged in this writ petition and in the event of filing any such application by the petitioner before the concerned Education Tribunal, it is needless to say that the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the present respondent No.8 as well as the School Managing Committee of Hazipara LP School, if necessary by examining the records of the School in original.

¶33

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Md. Abul Hossain v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abul Hossain v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Anjali Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Tapen Siga Vs Dikto Yekar

Sohrab Ali Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 17 Ors.

Mostaque Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dilip Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Abdul Mazid Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.