Disposed

Gulzar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Feb 2021WP(C)/354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction for provincialisation of petitioner's service in a school handeled via the specified Act. Court held petition non-maintainable and guided petitioner to exploit appeal provisions under Sections 14 and 19(2) to State Level Scrutiny Committee followed by Educational Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach State Level Scrutiny Committee and subsequently the Educational Tribunal.

Gulzar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010006322021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/354/2021

¶5

GULZAR HUSSAIN

¶6

S/O LATE KAZIM UDDIN, R/O VILL. DHOBAKURA, P.O. RAJMITA, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN 783129

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶10

KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019

¶11

3:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

¶12

KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN 781019

¶13

4:THE DIST. LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

¶14

GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA (CAIRMAN) OF THE DIST. LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE GOALPARA PIN 783330

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

5:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶17

GOALPARA PIN 783330 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA PIN 783330 7:THE HEADMASTER DAMRIVASHA GIRLS M.E. MADRASSA PIN 783330

¶18

8:ANOWAR HUSSAIN MUGHAL HEADMASTER DAMRIVASHA GIRLS M.E. MADRASSA DIST. GOALPARA PIN 78333

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K JAIN

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶21

B E F O R E

¶22

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶23

ORDER

¶24

02.02.2021

¶25

Heard Ms. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5. Also heard Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 4 and 6.

¶26

Petitioner contended that the School Managing Committee of Damrivasha Girls M.E. Madrassa, Katarihara, under Lakhipur Education Block of Goalpara district on 20.05.2008 appointed him as an Assistant Teacher in it on honorary basis. Accordingly he on 04.03.1997 itself joined his service in that Madrassa and is serving in it till date. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, obtained 2 years D.El.Ed. (ODL) in the year 2019.

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

Said Damrivasha Girls M.E. Madrassa, Katarihara of Goalpara district is a Venture Educational Institution and now steps have been taken under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 for provincialisation of services of teaching and non-teaching staff of said Girls M.E. Madrassa.

¶29

Petitioner contended that there are all together 50 (fifty) students in the said Girls M.E. Madrassa from Class VI to Class VIII and that the Rules and Norms under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 does not provide for a Headmaster in any such elementary school upto 100 students. The petitioner also stated that the Headmaster of the said Madrassa, respondent Nos. 7 & 8 taking advantage of his post recommended himself as an Assistant Teacher for the subject ‘Social Science’ debarring him from getting the benefit of provincialisation. Petitioner further stated that disregarding his better claim, the concerned District Scrutiny Committee without due verification recommended some other teaching staff of the said school including the respondent No. 8 without forwarding his name for provincialisation.

¶30

Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner praying for necessary direction to the respondents to consider his case for provincialisation of service under the provisions of said 2017 Act.

¶31

Section 13 of said 2017 Act provides for ‘District Scrutiny Committee and State Level Committee’. Sub-Sections (6), (7), (8), (10), (11) and (12) of Section 13 of the said 2017 Act read as follows:-

¶32

“ 13.(6) The District Scrutiny Committee shall first scrutinize and prepare a list of all Venture Educational Institutions within the district, which are eligible in terms of the provisions of this Act and shall thereafter proceed to scrutinize and verify the service records of all the serving teachers, who are eligible or would become eligible for being considered for provincialisation of their services. The District Committee shall identify a Base School for each category of school and recommend the name of teacher/tutor to be associated against each Base School.

¶33

13.(7) The District Scrutiny Committee shall forward the verified list of eligible teachers Base School-wise in accordance with this Act, to the concerned Director who shall place the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee to be constituted under Sub-Section (10) of this section and after making such further scrutiny as may be required, shall forward the same to the concerned Department of the State Government for

¶34

Page No.# 4/5

¶35

consideration and for issuing Notification in respect of the eligible institutions and teachers eligible for getting their services provincialised.

¶36

13.(8) The District Scrutiny Committee shall have the powers to inspect physical existence of school and to inspect all documents and records produced before it and call for such further records and documents as may be required for the purpose of causing verification and scrutiny and examine witnesses for the purpose, if considered necessary and while doing so it shall have the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of compelling attendance of persons and production of documents.

¶37

13.(10) There shall be one State Level Scrutiny Committee at State level for verification of recommendation received from the District Scrutiny Committees with the following member, namely:-

¶38

(i) Director of the concerned Department of Education-.................... Chairman,

¶39

(ii) Joint Director/Deputy Director of the concerned Directorate-.................... Member Secretary,

¶40

(iii) One representative nominated by the concerned Administrative Department .................... Member.

¶41

13.(11) The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall have to cause physical verification of all institutions and will also inspect all documents and records produced before it and call for such other records and documents as may be required for the purpose of causing verification.

¶42

13.(12) When there arises difference in between the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee and the Physical verification report caused by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the matter shall be placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall be final.”

¶43

Section 14 of the said 2017 Act relates to ‘Appellate Authority’ and it reads as follows:

¶44

“ 14. The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall be the appellate authority against any recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee and the State Government in the concerned administrative department shall be the Appellate Authority against any recommendation of the State Level Scrutiny Committee.”

¶45

Section 19 of the said 2017 relates to ‘Suit and Proceedings’ and Section 19 (2) reads as follows:-

¶46

“ 19.(2) To adjudicate disputes for redressal of grievances relating to the teaching staff of the Non-Government Educational Institution as well as disputes concerning disciplinary action, genuineness of establishment of school and claim for provincialisation in respect of teaching staff of Venture Educational Institution, there shall be an Educational Tribunal for each district within their respective Territorial Jurisdiction. The District and Sessions Judges and the Additional District and Sessions Judges of each District are designated as Educational Tribunal.”

¶47

Page No.# 5/5

¶48

As noted above the school in question is a venture educational institution and matter pertains to provincialisation of service of the petitioner. As such this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶49

However, considering the provisions of Sections 14 and 19 (2) of the 2017 Act, the petitioner may approach the State Level Scrutiny Committee by filing an appeal for redressal of his grievances against the recommendation made by the District Scrutiny Committee, Goalpara, who according to the petitioner did not consider his name for provincialisation of his service under the said 2017 Act to be an Assistant Teacher of Social Science in said Damrivasha Girls M.E. Madrassa, Katarihara of Goalpara district with interim prayer(s) if any.

¶50

In the event of filing any such appeal by the petitioner before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the said authority shall consider the matter in accordance with law and as provided in the said 2017 Act.

¶51

If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, as provided in Section 14 of said 2017 Act, he may approach the State Government in the concerned Department, the next higher Appellate Authority. Further, if the petitioner is still aggrieved for not provincialising his service under the said 2017 Act, he may approach the concerned Educational Tribunal for redressal of his grievance as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the said 2017 Act.

¶52

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Gulzar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulzar Hussain 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muksudur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prafulla Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Surath Ch. Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Asit Kumar Bhowmik Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Abdul Kadir Miah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Prasanta Borthakur Vs the State of Assam and Anr.