Remanded

Zalal Uddin v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Dec 2021WP(C)/6928/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed that the petitioner's claim for provincialisation was rejected due to oversight by the District Scrutiny Committee. It directed a fresh inquiry into the genuineness of the claim and the vacancy status, with the lower authority to report within three months while the impugned order is suspended.

What did the court decide?

The matter regarding the petitioner's claim was remanded to the Director of Elementary Education for enhanced inquiry into the genuineness of the claim and post status within three months.

Zalal Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010204332021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6928/2021

¶5

ZALAL UDDIN

¶6

S/O- LATE EBAD ALI, R/O VILLAGE- GAROJAN, PO- SIMLABARI, PSLAKHIPUR, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM-783330

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM -781006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM-781019

¶11

3:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M)-781019

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE GOALPARA REP BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA(CHAIRMAN) GOALPARA ASSAM-783929

¶13

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GOALPARA ASSAM-783129

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

6:THE HEADMASTER SALBARI M. E. MADRASSA GOALPARA ASSAM-78333

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 17-12-2021

¶21

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr., P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Bakolial, learned Government advocate for the respondent no.4 and Mr. Ganesh Pegu, learned Standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5.

¶22

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice upon the respondent no.6 i.e. Headmaster of Salbari ME Madrassa is dispensed with.

¶23

The petitioner projects that on 03.06.2017, the Headmaster of the said School had submitted the requisite particulars for provincialisation of the services of teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017.

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

Referring to Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide Appendix-I thereto the particulars of the petitioner was not submitted, although he had joined the school as Assistant teacher on 20.06.2003. Having noted the said non-disclosure of his particulars, the petitioner had submitted individual information to the District Elementary Education Officer (respondent no.5) on 03.08.2017 and vide letter dated 12.07.2017, the Block Elementary Education Officer had forwarded the said particulars to the District Elementary Education Officer.

¶26

Referring to Annexure-7 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner is reflected in the DISE data. It is also submitted that in the particulars of the school as submitted by the District Elementary Education Officer dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure-8), the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No.2.

¶27

However, as the name of the petitioner was not forwarded by the Headmaster, the service of the petitioner was not provincialized. By referring to the communication dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure-9), the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of the language teacher for which the petitioner is otherwise eligible is shown to be vacant.

¶28

The petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 17.12.2019 to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department (respondent no.1) regarding illegal removal of his name in the list forwarded for provincialisation, but as nothing happened despite his

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

representations to various authorities, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition which was numbered as WP(C) 227/2020 and this Court by order dated 19.03.2021, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent no.2) to pass a reasoned order on the representation dated 07.01.2020 of the writ petitioner.

¶31

In compliance of the said order, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent no.2) passed a speaking order dated 20.09.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner which is impugned/ assailed in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

It is noted that in the speaking order dated 20.09.2021 the Director of Elementary Education, appears to have considered only the re-verification in respect of two tutors whose names were proposed for provincialisation and the case of the petitioner was rejected as the name of the petitioner was not included in the list by the DSC (i.e. District Scrutiny Committee), Goalpara.

¶33

Accordingly, it appears that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, had not considered the name of the petitioner which was captured in the DISE data for academic year 2009-10 with reference date 30.09.2009. It also appears that there was no verification about the correctness of the claim of the petitioner that he was serving in the Salbari ME Madrassa w.e.f. 15.06.2003. Accordingly, the matter relating to the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of service is once again relegated to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent no.2) to cause an inquiry as to the genuineness

¶34

Page No.# 5/6

¶35

of the claim of the petitioner through his Sub-ordinate officer, if so desired, and in the alternative it would be open to the Director of Elementary Education to have the entire matter revisited by the District Level Scrutiny Committee and to expand the inquiry with regard to any other claimants for provincialisation in the said school. Thereafter, the authority shall pass a speaking order. The entire exercise shall be completed within an outer period of 3(three) months. In order to facilitate such exercise, the impugned order no.EPD/H/95/2021/41 dated 20.09.2021 shall remain suspended till the completion of the enquiry. Thereupon the respondent no.2 shall pass such order as may be appropriate in accordance with law.

¶36

Till such period, the Director of Elementary Education passed a speaking order, the vacant post of language teacher as indicated as per the report of the District Scrutiny Committee dated 28.06.2018 which is indicated in the enclosure appended to the communication dated 28.06.2018 by the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara (Annexure-9), shall not be filled up.

¶37

The petitioner shall produce before the respondent no.2 a certified copy of the order along with a copy of the writ petition and any other documents on which he intends to rely.

¶38

The writ petition stands disposed of on terms as indicated above.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Page No.# 6/6

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Zalal Uddin v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zalal Uddin v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Bhaluk Kona Naljhar M E School Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Shahera Begum Vs Md. Sirajul Islam

Md. Sirajul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Md. Abul Hasen Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Abdur Rohim Mondal Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Yogita Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.