Review petition filed by individuals formerly requested to stay provincialization of their services. Court observed that the enabling Act was declared unconstitutional, so no live issue survived. Dismissed petition holding no grounds for review of said decision.
Review petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010026362019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet. 35/2019
1:SRI KAMALA KANTA PHUKAN @ KAMALA PHUKAN AND ANR S/O- LATE PADMESWAR PHUKAN, R/O- VILL- PHUKAN GAON, P.O AND P.SGHILAMARA, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787053
2: MANTU CHANGMAI S/O- LATE LILA CHANGMAI R/O- VILL P.O AND P.S- GHILAMARA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 78705
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019
3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001
4:THE HEADMASTER DAKHIN GHILAMARA HIGH SCHOOL
Page No.# 2/3
P.O AND P.S- GHILAMARA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787058
5:INDRANI BARUAH W/O- SRI INDRESWAR GOGOI R/O- BHAKAT GAON P.O AND P.S- GHILAMARA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787058
6:MILESWAR SAIKIA S//O- LATE MAYARAM SAIKIA R/O- VILL NO.2 BATAMARI P.O- BATAMARI P.S- GHILAMARA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 78705
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGHA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
ORDER
Date : 06-03-2019
Heard Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. N. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Assam.
This petition has been filed for review of order dated 31.10.2016 passed in WP(C) No.4747/2014. It may be mentioned that by the order dated 31.10.2016, a large number of writ petitions were disposed of.
Be that as it may, relevant portion of the order dated 31.10.2016 pertaining to WP(C) No.4747/2014 is extracted hereunder:-
Page No.# 3/3
“ 2.Subject matter in both the writ petitions relate to provincialization of service of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in Dakhin Ghilamara High School in the district of Lakhimpur. 3.Provincialization order of the above 2 (two) respondents have been put to challenge in WP(C) No. 4747 of 2014. By order dated 17.09.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 4747 of 2014, provincialization of service of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 was stayed.
4.Consequent upon such order of the Court, provincialization orders of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were withdrawn by the authority, which led the 2 (two) respondents to file WP(C) No. 513 of 2015 as the writ petitioners.
5.It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011, on the basis of which, the services of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were provincialized, has been declared unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court. 6.In view of the said development, no live issue survives for adjudicationin the 2 (two) writ petitions. Consequently, application for vacating stay has also lost its force. 7.In view of the above, both the writ petitions along with the Miscellaneous and Interlocutory Applications are hereby dismissed.”
Review petitioners were respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the related writ petition.
As noted above, review petitioners had filed WP(C) No.513/2015 which was also disposed of by the order dated 31.10.2016.
It is seen that basis of provincialisation of the service of the two review petitioners being the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 being declared unconstitutional by this Court, no adjudication based on the said Act post declaration of it as unconstitutional could have been undertaken. Therefore, writ Court had rightly observed that no live issue survived for adjudication in the two writ petitions and accordingly both were dismissed.
On due consideration, Court is of the view that there is no ground whatsoever to review such observation and decision of this Court.
Review petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any ground exists to review the observation that the underlying Act had been declared unconstitutional and thus no live issue survived in the related writ petition.
Whether the dismissal of the preceding writ petitions due to the unconstitutionality of the provincialization Act warrants review.
Kamala Kanta Phukan
Mantu Changmai
State of Assam
Ujjal Bhuyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
