Disposed

Nizam Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2021WP(C)/6134/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's claim that his qualification was incorrectly reflected in a provincialisation recommendation due to clerical errors. It relegated the matter to the statutory appellate authority while directing the department to dispose of future appeals within one month.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by relegating the matter to the appellate authority under Section 14 of the Act, with a direction to dispose of appeals within one month.

Nizam Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors. — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010192762021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6134/2021

¶5

NIZAM UDDIN AHMED

¶6

S/O RAHMAT ALI, VILL. KAZAIKATA PART-V, P.O. KAZAIKATA, P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783348

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS

¶9

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶11

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶12

3:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

¶13

SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT. KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 ( TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN)

¶14

4:THE DIST. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

¶15

DHUBRI DIST. (TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783301

¶16

5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

¶17

Page No.# 2/6

¶18

DDC DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783301

¶19

6:THE LOKAPRIYA HIGH SCHOOL

¶20

KADAMTOLA P.O. KADAMTOLA P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348 (TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE HEADMASTER CUM SECY. OF LOKAPRIYA HIGH SCHOOL)

¶21

7:NURUL ISLAM

¶22

ASSTT. TEACHER (SC) OF LOKAPRIYA HIGH SCHOOL KADAMTOLA P.O. KADAMTOLA P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348

¶23

8:RAHUL DEV SINGHA

¶24

ASSTT. TEACHER (SC) LOKAPRIYA HIGH SCHOOL KADAMTOLA P.O. KADAMTOLA P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783348

¶25

9:KALPANA GHOSH

¶26

W/O BIBHASH KARMAKAR R/O WARD NO. 14 BILASIPARA COLLEGE ROAD P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78334

¶27

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN

¶28

Page No.# 3/6

¶29

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶30

BEFORE

¶31

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Date : 08-12-2021

¶34

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. G. Bokolial, learned Government Advocate for the respondent no.4.

¶35

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of: (i) the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 in so far as it relates to the provincialisation of services of respondent nos.7 and 8, (ii) the recommendation made by the District Scrutiny Committee, Dhubri. It is projected that in the said recommendation, alleged incorrect qualification of the respondent nos.7 and 8 was mentioned and similarly the qualification of the petitioner as General Science teacher was wrongly mentioned instead of General Maths teacher. Similarly, it is projected that the name of the respondent no.9 was wrongly mentioned as General Maths teacher instead of English teacher. In support of his context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to page-42 of the writ petition (Annexure-5), which is a list of educational and professional qualification of teachers/ tutors, which forms a part of the data provided to the District Scrutiny Committee under the signature of Headmaster of Lokapriya High School, Kadamtola, and it is submitted that at serial no.9, the name of the petitioner is reflected against the name of subject which is Mathematics.

¶36

Page No.# 4/6

¶37

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to prima facie demonstrate that the order of provincialisation dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure-9) is based on incorrect facts which has emanated from the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee (Annexure-7).

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the provisions of clause-(viii) of sub-section 1 of section 3 of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 wherein it has been provided that in case of Venture High School, there must be one teacher or tutor to each course subject i.e. Maths, Science, English, MIL and Social Studies and accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner is a B.Sc. (Royal) with Major in Maths and therefore, the name of the petitioner ought to have been recommended for provincialisation as there is a mandatory requirement to have a qualified Maths teacher in the school.

¶39

In this regard the learned Standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department has also referred to provision of section 14 and 19 of the said Act to project that in respect of disputes of such nature, appellate provision has been provided for and it is submitted that in this case the appeal can be preferred before the State Government through the i.e. before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department.

¶40

In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are instances of inordinate delay by the appellate authority in the Secondary Education Department in disposal of appeals. It is submitted that in that event

¶41

Page No.# 5/6

¶42

the entire purpose for approaching this Court would be frustrated.

¶43

Considering the nature of grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case as the Court is inclined to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority as provided under section 14 of the aforesaid act. The Court is also inclined to issue a direction upon the Head of the Department of the Secondary Education Department (by whatever designation referred) that in the event the petitioner prefers an appeal, the Head of the Department, i.e. the Appellate authority shall make an attempt to dispose of the appeal within 1(one) month from the date of service of notice of appeal on the concerned respondents. In order to expedite the service of notice, the respondent no.1 is permitted to send e-mail to the Inspector of Schools, Dhubri District Circle, Dhubri who would cause service of notice to the concerned respondents and to the affected parties in the Lokapriya High School, Kadamtola.

¶44

Having prima facie found merit in the projection made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is inclined to observe that till adjudication of such appeal, the provincialisation of service of respondent nos.7 and 8 as teachers of Lokapriya High School, Kadamtola would not confer any right on them.

¶45

Accordingly, by relegating the petitioner to approach the Appellate authority, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Page No.# 6/6

¶48

Comparing Assistant

Nizam Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizam Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 8 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

Abdul Hakim Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Bibha Rani Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Gias Uddin Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Md. Gias Uddin Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

All B.T.A.D. School Mother Teachers Association and Anr. Vs Shantanu P. Gotmare

Sajal Das and 40 Ors. Vs Sri B Kalyan Chakrabarthy and 2 Ors.