Allowed

Mukti Das v. Madhab Bhuyan and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2021I.A.(Civil)/1183/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the impleadment of the applicant, Sri Mukti Das, as a respondent in a writ petition filed by another candidate. The court accepted that the applicant has an interest in the prayer seeking appointment of the writ petitioner as Principal but lacks interest in the prayer against the initiation of departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of the applicant Sri Mukti Das as respondent no. 4 in WP(C) No. 2423/2020 allowed in respect of the prayer to appoint the writ petitioner as Principal.

Mukti Das Vs Madhab Bhuyan and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010090412020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1183/2020

¶5

MUKTI DAS

¶6

S/O. LATE RAMA KANTA DAS, R/O. RAIDONNGIA, P.O. AIBHETI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MADHAB BHUYAN AND 3 ORS RAIDONGIA HOLIRAM SAIKIA H.S. SCHOOL, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶9

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:STATE SELECTION BOARD

¶10

ASSAM REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K MAHANTA

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S K DAS

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 16-03-2021

¶17

Heard Mr. K Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant Sri Mukti Das. Also heard Mr. SMT Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 being the authorities under the Secondary Education, Assam and Mr. R. Karim, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan.

¶18

In respect of a selection process for the post of Principal of Raidongia Holiram Saikia Higher Secondary School, where both the applicant Sri Mukti Das and the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan had participated, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan had earlier instituted WP(C) No. 2638/2017 which was decided in favour of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan as per the judgment dated 28.08.2018. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant Sri Mukti Das had preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No. 201/2020 which is stated to be pending.

¶19

In respect of the judgment dated 28.08.2018 in WP(C) No. 2638/2017, the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan had also instituted a Contempt Petition No. 593/2019. In the contempt proceeding a communication from the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education was produced which provided that the Government in the Secondary Education Department by letter no ASE.486/2017/WP(C)2638/2017/228 had directed the Director of Secondary Education to draw up a departmental proceeding against the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan under the Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964. Being aggrieved by the said communication of 16.03.2020 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department WP(C) No. 2423/2020 has been instituted. The prayers made in WP(C) No. 2423/2020 are extracted as below:

¶20

“In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why:-

¶21

a. a writ in the nature of Ceritorari shall not be issued to set aside and quash the

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

impugned order dated 16.3.2020 (Annexure-9) issued by the Respondent No. 1 negating the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal sans considering the Enquiring Report dated 19.2.2020.

¶24

b. a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued commanding and directing the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as regular Principal in Raidongia HS School on the strength of his review selection and recommendation made by the State Selection Board, Assam vide Minutes dated 20.9.2019 (Annexure-5 Colly) in terms of Hon’ble Court’s direction dated 28.8.2018 (Annexure-1) passed in WP(C)2638/2017 and/or cause or causes being shown, after hearing the parties and on perusal of records make the rule absolute by giving complete relief to the petitioner and/or pass such other or further orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

AND –

¶26

In the interim it is prayed that your Lordships would be pleased:

¶27

a. To suspend/stay the impugned order dated 16.3.2020 (Annexure-9)

¶28

b. To appoint the petitioner as Principal of Raidognia HS School Raidongia HS School on the strength of recommendation by SSB, Assam dated 20.9.2019 (Annexure-5 Colly), DSE, Assam’s order dated 5.11.2019 (Annexure-6) and Hon’ble Court’s direction dated 28.8.2018 passed in WP(C)2638/2017 (Annexure-1).

¶29

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bond shall ever pray.”

¶30

The first prayer apparently is against the decision of the State respondent authorities to initiate a departmental proceeding against the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner, Sri Madhab Bhuyan. The second prayer is for a direction to appoint the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan as the Principal of the Raidongia Holiram Saikia Higher Secondary School.

¶31

Admittedly as noted above, the applicant Sri Mukti Das also has an interest to be appointed as the Principal of the Raidongia Holiram Saikia Higher Secondary School, and if the second prayer in WP(C) No. 2423/2020 is for a direction to appoint the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan as the Principal of the school, obviously the applicant Sri Mukti Das would have an interest in the said process and therefore, would be a necessary party.

¶32

But as regards the first prayer in WP(C) No. 2423/2020 which is against the decision to

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

initiate a departmental proceeding against the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Madhab Bhuyan, in our considered view, the applicant Sri Mukti Das cannot have any interest over the said dispute and therefore, for the purpose of the first prayer, the applicant Sri Mukti Das will not be a necessary party.

¶35

Considering the matter as indicated above, we allow the impleadment of the applicant Sri Mukti Das as respondent no. 4 in WP(C) No. 2423/2020, as regards the second prayer in the said writ petition i.e. to appoint the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner Sri Mukti Das as the Principal of Raidongia Holiram Saikia Higher Secondary School. Having allowed the impleadment in respect of the second prayer in the writ petition, we also provide that the applicant Sri Mukti Das as the respondent in WP(C) No. 2423/2020 shall be restrained from making any submission on the first prayer of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner as regards the decision of the State authorities to imitate a departmental proceeding against him.

¶36

I.A. stands allowed in the above terms.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Mukti Das v. Madhab Bhuyan and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukti Das v. Madhab Bhuyan 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

Hemada Chetia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S North East Hi Tech Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mithun Singh Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

On the Death of Tayebur Rahman, His Legal Heir, Ubaidullah Vs Preetom Saikia and 2 Ors.

Syed Faruk Hussain Khan Vs Pritom Saikia and 4 Ors.

Tirtha Nath Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.