Dismissed

Taj Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Aug 2022WA/228/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal against a writ order directing the appellant to approach the Educational Tribunal. The Court upheld the Single Judge's decision that the Alternate Remedy under Section 19(2) of the 2017 Act was available, rendering writ jurisdiction inapt, while directing the Tribunal to prioritize the case.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was directed to file an appeal before the Educational Tribunal, Kamrup, latest by 31.08.2022, with a direction for the Tribunal to decide the matter preferably within six months.

Taj Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010104222022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WA/228/2022

¶5

TAJ UDDIN AHMED

¶6

S/O- LT. ABDUL HALIM, VILL- JORSHIMULI, P.O. TAPARA PATHAR, P.S. CHHAYGAON, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781137

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19

¶11

4:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DY. COMMISSIONER OF KAMRUP DISTRICT ASSAM PIN- 781031

¶12

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KAMRUP DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CHHAYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031 7:THE HEADMASTER CUM SECRETARY OF JORSHIMULI MAHABIR PATHAR M.E MADRASSA VILL- JORSHIMULI P.O. TAPAR PATHAR P.S. CHHYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781137

¶15

8:SHAHAB UDDIN TUTOR OF OF JORSHIMULI MAHABIR PATHAR L.P.SCHOOL C/O- HEAD MASTER OF JORSHIMULI MAHABIR PATHAR L.P.SCHOOL VILL- JORSHIMULI P.O. TAPAR PATHAR P.S. CHHYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 78113

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 17.08.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the writ appellant. Also heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

¶22

By way of this intra-court appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity and legality of the order dated 19.04.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

1944/2021.

¶25

The question which arises in the said writ petition, as rightly recorded by the learned Single Judge, is a dispute between the appellant and one individual, namely, Shahab Uddin with regard to provincialisation of service. Section 19 (2) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “2017 Act”), which relates to proceedings, inter alia provides that in order to adjudicate disputes relating to the teaching staff of the Non-Government educational institutions as well as disputes concerning disciplinary action, the Educational Tribunal is the remedy available. Section 19(2) further provides that the District and Sessions Judge or the Additional District and Sessions Judge of each district is designated as the Educational Tribunal. By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge has directed the writ petitioner/appellant to approach the appropriate Educational Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

¶26

We are totally in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Considering the fact that the dispute is between two private individuals with regard to provincialisation of service, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has the alternative remedy to approach the appropriate Educational Tribunal, Kamrup District, for redressal of his grievance as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the 2017 Act. The learned Single Judge has rightly not exercised his extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the issue requires a detailed enquiry.

¶27

The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is not entertained.

¶28

At this stage, Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant will approach the concerned Educational Tribunal and the concerned Educational Tribunal may be directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months.

¶29

Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

hereby direct that if the appellant files an appeal before the Educational Tribunal, Kamrup, latest by 31.08.2022 then the Tribunal shall give priority to the issue and shall make an endeavour to decide the same finally as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of institution of the appeal.

¶32

The appeal is not otherwise entertained on merit and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.

¶33

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Taj Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Rishab Phukan Vs Mr. Putula Begum and 7 Ors.

Center for Environment Protection (Cep) Vs the State of Mizoram and Ors.

Katinath Narzary Vs Madhu Agarwala and Anr.

Sri Joyram Das and Anr. Vs Sri Nabajyoti Nath and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Deka Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Muslim Ali Vs the Bank of Baroda and Anr.