Partly allowed

Jatindra Nath Roy, v. Kalyani Sikdar and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2022I.A.(Civil)/314/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court modified an interim order staying provincialisation of language teachers to maintain the status-quo for the applicant, who teaches social science, while allowing provincialisation for language teachers to proceed subject to further orders in the main writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 08.04.2021 was modified to maintain the status quo regarding the post of teacher in social science, while permitting provincialisation of language teachers subject to further o

Jatindra Nath Roy, Vs Kalyani Sikdar and 6 Ors. — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010067582021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/314/2022

¶5

JATINDRA NATH ROY

¶6

S/O LATE HAREKANTA ROY VILL. POKALAG PART-III P.O. POKALAGI P.S. GOLOKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783335

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

KALYANI SIKDAR AND 6 ORS. W/O SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY VILL. SONAKHULI PART-I P.O. MAHAMAYA HATI (HALAKURA) P.S. GOLOKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI PIN 783335

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPTT. (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR ASSAM-06 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

¶10

ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

4:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI ASSAM. 5:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SARBA SIKHSHA ABHIYAN MISSION (SSA) ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019 6:THE DIST. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DHUBRI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM. 7:NAGENDRA NATH ROY S/O ATE JOGENDRA NATH ROY VILL. POKALAGI PART-II P.O. POKALAGI P.S. AGOMONI DIST. DHUBRI (ASSAM) P.S. DHUBRI ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR.F. U. BARBHUIYA Advocate for : appearing for KALYANI SIKDAR AND 6 ORS.

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 14.03.2022

¶16

Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, Mr. P.K. Borah, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, appearing for opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appears for opposite party no.7.

¶17

Page No.# 3/5

¶18

This interlocutory application has been filed for vacation/ modification or alteration of the order dated 08.04.2021 passed in WP(C) 2530/2021. By the said order, this Court arrived at a satisfaction regarding existence of prima facie case and thereafter, considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss that the opposite party no. 1 may suffer, it was provided that the effect of provincialisation be not granted to the respondent no.7 until further orders.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the format for report of District Scrutiny Committee (page 32 of the writ petition) disclosing that the name of the applicant (respondent no.7 in the writ petition) was proposed by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialisation of his service as Language teacher and similarly the name of the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 7 were also recommended for provincialisation of their services as Language teacher.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had joined in service on 02.03.1986 i.e. earlier in point of time than the opposite party no. 1 and moreover, the applicant would be superannuating after about one and half years. By referring to the statements made in the paragraph 8 of the interlocutory application, it is submitted that the post against which the applicant is holding and claiming in the writ petition are totally different and it is also asserted that the applicant has been serving in the post of language teacher and on the said ground, the order dated 08.04.2021 is sought to be modified.

¶21

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has submitted that as per the provisions of the Section 3(i)(xi) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational

¶22

Page No.# 4/5

¶23

Institutions) Act, 2017 as per enrollment of students in the Pokalagi Ganeshwardham S.C.M.E. School, the service of only three teachers or tutors could have been provincialised, one for (a) Science and Mathematics, (b) Social Science, and (c) Languages. Accordingly, it is submitted that as there is no dispute at the bar that the opposite party no.1 is teaching social science, the services of three language teachers cannot be provincialised. It is also submitted that the interim order passed on 08.04.2021 ought not to be modified as the name of the applicant appears below the name of the opposite party no. 1. It is also submitted that at any event as the opposite party no.1 was a social science teacher, her service ought not to have been proposed for provincialisation as language teacher, which has created the confusion.

¶24

Having regard to the fact that the learned counsel for the applicant has made a categorical statement to the effect that the applicant is not contesting or seeking provincialisation of service as a social science teacher and he asserts that the opposite party no. 1 is teaching social science subject upon which the applicant has not made any claim, the Court is inclined to take note of the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department that the service of none of the teachers/ tutors for the post of teacher in social science has been provincialised. Similar statement has also been made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 7 that he has no claim regarding post of Teacher in social studies.

¶25

Therefore, having regard to the undisputed assertion made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.6 that the opposite party no. 1 is teaching the subject of social science, the Court is inclined to modify the interim order dated 08.04.2021 by specifically

¶26

Page No.# 5/5

¶27

providing that the status-quo be maintained with regard to the post of teacher in social science subject in which the applicant is claiming to be teaching. It is further made clear that the provincialisation of service of teacher in the subject of language would not affect the claim of the opposite party no.1 for the subject of social science.

¶28

Having noticed that the names of the applicant as well as the opposite party no. 7 are both are recommended for provincialisation of their services as language teacher, there shall be no bar for the authorities to take an appropriate decision which would however be subject to further orders that may be passed in the connected writ petition.

¶29

The interim order dated 08.04.2021 passed in WP(C) 2530/2021 stands modified to the extent as indicated above.

¶30

Accordingly, this I.A. stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Jatindra Nath Roy, v. Kalyani Sikdar and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatindra Nath Roy, v. Kalyani Sikdar and 6 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

Pawan Sonam Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Anchen Taflap Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors.

Kaheka Pralo Vs Kaling Tayeng and Anr.

Sarabari Ghosh Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Hem Chandra Das and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Probin Boruah Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.