Remanded

Md. Mizanur Rahman and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Aug 2021WP(C)/2826/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Assistant Professors challenged rejection of provincialisation under the 2017 Act due to alleged lack of government concurrence for four subjects. The single judge held the department's arbitrary conduct was a fault of the state, not the teachers, and remanded the matter for regularisation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; matter remanded to Director of Higher Education to regularise the earlier lapse and pass reasoned order for de novo provincialisation within one month.

Md. Mizanur Rahman and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010070852021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2826/2021

¶5

MD. MIZANUR RAHMAN AND 9 ORS ASSTT. PROFESSOR, DEPTT. OF PHILOSOPHY, UDALI COLLEGE, BAMUNGAON, NAGAON

¶6

2: MAKARIM HUSSAIN ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF PHILOSOPHY UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶7

3: NARAYAN KRISHNA DAS ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF GEOGRAPHY UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶8

4: DEVASREE SHARMA ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF GEOGRAPHY UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶9

5: DHANPAL CHAUHAN ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF HINDI (MIL) UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶10

6: MOTILAL CHAUHAN ASSTT. PROFESSOR

¶11

Page No.# 2/8

¶12

DEPTT. OF HINDI UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶13

7: ABDUL MOTIN ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF PHILOSOPHY UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶14

8: SHIO JEE CHAUHAN ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF HINDI UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶15

9: PINKI TALUKDAR ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF MATHEMATICS UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON

¶16

10: ABDUS SAMAD ASSTT. PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF MATHEMATICS UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAO

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶19

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶20

2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶21

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19

¶22

Page No.# 3/8

¶23

4:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER NAGAON CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE NAGAON

¶24

5:THE PRINCIPAL UDALI COLLEGE BAMUNGAON NAGAON- 78244

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R DEVI

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU

¶27

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Date : 04-08-2021

¶30

Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.

¶31

Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Higher Education Department of the Govt. of Assam, Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 being represented by

¶32

the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon.

¶33

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we do not deem that notice to be served on the respondent No.5 being the Principal, Udali College, Bamungaon.

¶34

All the ten petitioners herein were appointed as Assistant Professor in

¶35

Page No.# 4/8

¶36

Udali College, Nagaon and they are working as such continuously till date. It is

¶37

stated that Udali College was granted permission to start the TDC (Arts) 1^st year class for the session 1996-97 vide resolution No.2000/20/157(17) dated 17.11.2000 with the following subjects, but was subjected to the government

¶38

concurrence:-

¶39

“That the brief facts of the case is that the Udali College, Bamungaon, Nagaon was established in the year 1995. The College received permission for opening from Gauhati University vide E.C. Resolution No.96/8/97(24) dated 15.06.1996 and confirmed by the Executive Council on 20.07.1996. The College was granted permission to start TDC(Arts) 1^st year class for the Sessions 1996-97 vide Resolution No.2000/20/157(17) dated 17.11.2000 with the following subjects which were subject to Govt. Concurrence:

¶40

English, 2. Assamese (MIL), 3. Hindi (MIL), 4. Elective Assamese, 5. Arabic and Bengali (MIL), 6. Economics, 7. Economics, 7. Education, 8. Political Science, 9. History, 10. Philosophy, 11. Mathematics, 12. Geography.”

¶41

Page No.# 5/8

¶42

But the Government in the Higher Education had accorded Part-I

¶43

concurrence for the session 1996-97 as per the order No.AHE.13/2005/77 dated 06.04.2005 with the following subjects:-

¶44

“That the Inspector of Colleges, Assam inspected the College for according Government Concurrence and found the College fulfilling all the required criteria for such Concurrence. Accordingly, the Director of Higher Education, Assam submitted the proposal vide letter dated 03.01.2005 recommending Govt. Concurrence to all subjects mentioned above. However, the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department accorded Part-I Concurrence for the sessions 1996-97 vide letter No.AE.13/2005/77 dated 06.04.2005 on the following subjects:

¶45

English, 2. MIL Assamese, 3. Elective Assamese 4. Arabic, 5. MIL Bengali, 6. Economic, 7. Education, 8. Political Sciene, 9. History.”

¶46

The implication of granting concurrence to the aforesaid subjects was that

¶47

the subjects Hindi, Philosophy, Mathematics and Geography were not given concurrence. By a subsequent order No.AHE.412/2008109 dated 29.12.2008, the Govt. of Assam in the Higher Education Department had accorded Part-II

¶48

Page No.# 6/8

¶49

concurrence or grant of permission for affiliation up to the TDC Part-II (Arts) in all the aforesaid subjects i.e. including Hindi, Philosophy, Mathematics and Geography. The Udali College, Nagaon continued its activities in the aforesaid manner. When the stage came for considering provincialisation of the teaching staff of the College under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short Act of 2017) all the teachers including the present petitioners were subjected to consideration. But the notification by which the grant of provincialisation was indicated did not contain the name of the present petitioners and the reason stated in the notification is that there is no government concurrence.

¶50

It has been submitted before us that the remark ‘no government concurrence’ was given inasmuch as, the Udali College did not have the government concurrence for the aforesaid four subjects of Hindi, Philosophy, Mathematics and Geography for the 1^st year TDC(Arts). But at the same time, we have taken note of that the College continued to function along with the aforesaid four subjects till date without any complaint that there are no students etc. and secondly, the concurrence was given to the aforesaid four subjects for Part-II TDC course. The very act of the Govt. of Assam in the Higher Education Department not to grant concurrence to the four subjects of

¶51

Page No.# 7/8

¶52

the College for the Part-I TDC course in spite of there being no material being produced that the college was not eligible for concurrence for the aforesaid four subjects for the Part-I and more importantly, due concurrence was given to the same four subjects for the Part-II TDC course in the subsequent year. The provincialisation of the present petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the college did not have the concurrence for the aforesaid four subjects of Hindi, Philosophy, Mathematics and Geography for the Part-I TDC course although it had the necessary concurrence for the Part-II TDC course. As already held the same situation itself indicates an arbitrariness on the part of the Higher Education Department.

¶53

Such rejection of the right of the petitioners to be otherwise provincialised on the basis of such arbitrary act on the part of the department itself would not be sustainable in law. It is not a fault of the petitioners in any manner or of the Udali College itself that the concurrence for the four subjects was not granted by the department for Part-I TDC course, whereas, concurrence was given to Part-II TDC course. On the basis of the principle of law that no one can be condemned for fault not of theirs whereas on the other hand, the fault lies on the part of the department itself, we interfere with the rejection of provincialisation of the petitioners on the ground that there was no government concurrence.

¶54

Page No.# 8/8

¶55

Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the Director of Higher Education Department for doing the needful, if necessary to regularize the earlier lapse in not granting the concurrence to the four subjects, if otherwise under the law the college is entitled for such concurrence. The Director accordingly to pass the reasoned order on the same and thereupon if the necessary concurrence is granted, the petitioner would be subjected to a process of provincialisation de novo.

¶56

The requirement of passing the order be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. If the order is in favour of concurrence, subsequent consequential be done within another three months.

¶57

Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Md. Mizanur Rahman and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mizanur Rahman and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanchala Paul Vs Preetam Saikia and Anr.

Danswrang Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Rupak Kumar Pawe Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dhanada Dihingia Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dr. Rajdeep Das Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Mohitosh Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.