Allowed

Khudeja Khatun Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 May 2022WA/169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal against the dismissal of a petition seeking appointment as a lower primary school teacher. The Court directed the State to expedite the pending Staff Inspection Unit approval process and complete it within two months. The Court noted that no practical purpose would be served regarding the petitioner's age but relied on pending application status.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Impugned order set aside; Direction to complete SIU approval process within two months.

Khudeja Khatun Choudhury Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010075382022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WA/169/2022

¶5

KHUDEJA KHATUN CHOUDHURY

¶6

W/O FAKAR UDDIN MIRA, R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN, WARD NO. 11, PO- R.P. ROAD, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788155

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY., TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY SECETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶11

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

¶12

4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI

¶14

6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

HAILAKANDI

Page No.# 2/4

7:THE SECRETARY

FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-0

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K A MAZUMDER

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 13-05-2022

¶25

Heard Mr. K. A. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the writ appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, as well as Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing counsel, Finance, appearing for the State respondents.

¶26

In this writ appeal, the appellant has put to challenge the order dated 16.03.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 2558/2017, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

¶27

Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner was selected in the year 1986-87 for appointment as L.P. School Teacher. However, she was not appointed as formal order/approval was not issued by the authorities. Therefore, she approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking a direction to issue Staff Inspection Unit (SIU) approval so as to enable her to get formal appointment as L.P. School Teacher since she had already been selected by the authorities for appointment.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a letter dated 31.05.2017, issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, to the

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department (Annexure-16) and has submitted that the petitioner’s application for grant of SIU approval is already under process. Further, by referring to paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 20.11.2020 by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (Annexure-22), learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the petitioner was selected in the year 1986-1987, her case was forwarded to the Government for the first time on 28.02.2001.

¶31

The learned Single Judge, however, considering the fact that now the petitioner is about 57 years old and she is claiming appointment in respect of the Select List which was published 36 years ago, was of the view that no practical purpose will be served by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the writ appellant argues that whether any effective order could be passed if the petitioner reached the age of 57 years, or not, was not the issue before the learned Single Judge. The only issue raised by the writ petitioner was non-granting of SIU approval in respect of the petitioner’s appointment. However, there was no such consideration by the learned Single Judge.

¶33

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that whether the State authorities will be willing to grant SIU approval at this stage after the petitioner has reached the age of 57 years, or not, is an issue which can be considered by the State authorities. However, the assertion made by the learned counsel for the writ appellant that the appellant’s application for grant of SIU approval is under process is not denied by the State respondents.

¶34

Under these circumstances, we allow the appeal by directing the State respondents to consider the application filed by the writ appellant for grant of SIU approval as per the aforesaid letter dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure-16) as well as the statement made by the State in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 20.11.2020 (Annexure-22), which also reflects that the matter is under consideration.

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

Accordingly, the impugned order 16.03.2022, passed in WP(C) 2558/2017 is hereby set aside with the direction to the respondent authorities to complete the process, which is pending before the authorities as indicated in the aforesaid documents, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months.

¶37

JUDCE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Khudeja Khatun Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khudeja Khatun Choudhury v. the State of Assam 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

Xxx Vs in Re - State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Sanjib Kumar Barua Vs Pallav Gopal Jha

Saleha Bibi Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

The State Bank of India Vs Justice (Retd.) Mr. Basu Deo Agarwal

The State Bank of India Vs Justice (Retd.) Mr. Basu Deo Agarwal

Sri Dhiraj Das and Anr. Vs Smt. Kavitha Padmanabhan and 2 Ors.