Disposed

Devananda Naohalia @ Debendu Naohalia and 2 Ors. v. Preetom Saikia

Gauhati HC4 Nov 2022Cont.Cas(C)/181/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a 2018 order regarding teacher appointments. The Court directed the petitioner to submit the certified copy of the order to the new incumbent who replaced a retired official and directed the respondents to take action within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to produce certified copy of order of 16.03.2018 before new incumbent; respondents to take necessary steps within one month.

Devananda Naohalia @ Debendu Naohalia and 2 Ors. Vs… — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010054212019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/181/2019

¶5

DEVANANDA NAOHALIA @ DEBENDU NAOHALIA AND 2 ORS. S/O. SRI SADANANDA NAOHALIA, VILL. BAZIAPARA, P.O. DIKHAIKINAR, P.S. KHOWANG, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

¶6

2: ANANDA KUMAR NATH VILL. DUBAJAN GAON P.O. ANANDAPARA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM.

¶7

3: SMT. USHA RANI BARUAH W/O. MANIK CHANDRA BARUAH VILL. SORUPATHER P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

PREETOM SAIKIA

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R MAJUMDAR

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

B E F O R E

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶16

04-11-2022

¶17

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

By this contempt petition, petitioners are alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.03.2018 which was passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5014 of 2012.

¶19

The operative part of the order reads as follows :

¶20

“ 7. This Court also takes note of an order dated 02.03.2010 of the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.1048/2004, wherein this Court had provided for constitution of a Committee to examine the claims of such teachers as regards the validity and legality of their appointment. In the Division Bench order, this Court had provided that in the event, it is found upon screening that the teachers were legally and validly appointed, appropriate steps for salary to be paid be taken. On the other hand, the Division Bench also provided that the State respondent authorities may take a policy decision in respect of such teachers, who, upon such screening are found to have been illegally appointed.

¶21

8. In view of the above, it is deemed appropriate that as it is the case of the petitioners for payment of salary and whereas it is the stand of the State respondent authorities that they were not validly appointed, the ends of justice would be met if the case of the petitioners are also examined by the aforesaid Committee constituted by this Court in its order dated 02.03.2010. In doing

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

so, the Committee shall give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing to produce and rely upon the aforesaid two documents annexed in the writ petition and also any other documents that the petitioners may desire to rely upon in order to substantiate that they were legally and validly appointed.

¶24

9. Upon such exercise being taken, the Screening Committee shall pass a reasoned order and do the needful. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall accordingly obtain a certified copy of this order and produce the same before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, who shall do the needful to facilitate the petitioners to appear before the Screening Committee as indicated above.

¶25

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶26

At this stage, Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole respondent has retired from service and a new incumbent has taken over the charge of the post. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners may be allowed to produce a copy of the judgment and order dated 16.03.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) no.5014 of 2012, before the new incumbent.

¶27

Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner is directed to produce the certified true copy of the judgment and order dated 16.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.5014 of 2012 before the new incumbent. Thereafter, appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondents in terms of the judgment and order dated

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

16.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.5014 of 2012 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified true copy of this order.

¶30

With the aforesaid direction, this contempt petition stands closed.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Devananda Naohalia @ Debendu Naohalia and 2 Ors. v. Preetom Saikia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devananda Naohalia @ Debendu Naohalia and 2 Ors. v. Preetom Saikia

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

Nurjahan Begum Mazumder Vs S. Jagannathan, IAS and 4 Ors.

Nazmul Hoque Barbhuiya Vs Alok Kumar

Anil Kumar Vs Lieutenant General Sukhdeep Sangwan

Murshida Yeasmin Laskar Vs Sri H. N. Gautam

Trailokya Kalita Vs Anurag Goyel and Anr.

Ms. Rupa Das Vs Rajesh Kemprai and Anr.

Bhaben Choudhury Vs Anurag Goel, IAS and Anr.

Mamoni Konwar Vs Bamin Nime

Tahera Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mridula Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dipak Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rinky Kumari Baroi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mainul Hoque Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dharani Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.