Appeal against Single Judge order granting increment to 41 teachers who obtained B.Ed post-appointment. Court closed appeal as infructuous because Government notifications had been issued complying with the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010244652017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/336/2017
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
VERSUS
SRI DURJOY PAUL and 41 ORS
S/O LATE DURGADAS PAUL, ASSTT. TEACHER, BIDYAMANDIR H.S. SCHOOL, KDC, AMINGAON, VILL. PANDAB NAGAR, P.O. ADABARI, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN 781012
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R P KAKOTI SR. ADV. (R1)
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA O R D E R
12.05.2022
(N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ (Actg).)
Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.02.2016 passed in WP(C) No.6241/2015. The said writ petition was filed by 41 graduate teachers of different Secondary Schools in various districts of
Page No.# 2/4
Assam. At the time of their appointment, as per the Rules applicable, i.e., Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 1982, B. Ed was not an essential qualification for being appointed to such a post and there was provision for granting of increment to such teachers, who obtained B. Ed after joining service as an incentive. However, subsequently, B. Ed became a compulsory requirement for being appointed as graduate teacher with effect from 03.07.2012 in terms of Rule 12 as amended in the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2012. Subsequently, rules have been changed and now the applicable rules are “Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2018” in which the said position remains unchanged.
3. Upon amendment of the Rules making B. Ed as a compulsory requirement, the authorities stopped granting increment to those teachers, who subsequently obtained B. Ed degree by issuing a notification under No.ASE.229/2013/153 dated 22.10.2014. Because of the said notification, the petitioners in the said writ petition were deprived of increments, which they were getting resulting in filing of the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing all the parties, set aside the said notification primarily on the ground that issuance of such notification was not followed by proper procedure as laid down under the Revision of Pay Rules, 2010. The offshoot was that plea for grant of increment was not denied.
4. It is this order, which has been put under challenge by the State authorities in the present appeal.
5. When this matter was taken up for hearing, it has been very fairly submitted by Ms. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, that the State Government is actively examining the issue so that effective measures can be taken.
6. Ms. Chakraborty submits that Rules have subsequently been amended from time to time and the prevailing Rules are Assam Secondary Education
Page No.# 3/4
(Provincialisation) Rules, 2018, which makes possession of B. Ed compulsory for appointment to the post of graduate teacher. Thus, by making B. Ed compulsory, the raison d’etre for giving increment does not exist any longer. Hence, necessary exercise is being undertaken by the State Government by complying with the provisions of law as regards the claim for grant of increment to those teachers who though initially did not possess B. Ed but subsequently came to possess B. Ed as to whether they can be granted increment or not which exercise would, however, take some time.
7. In this connection, the writ petitioners, who are respondents in the present appeal, have filed an affidavit on 20.12.2021 in which they have drawn attention of this Court to certain order issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 30.06.2016 in which it has been stated that the State Government has decided to comply with the order of the Court passed on 16.02.2016, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The said order mentions the names of all the writ petitioners and they were directed to submit applications as per the procedure for grant of one advance increment and it was also ordered that on receipt of the applications, the Inspector of Schools, in case of graduate teachers, shall issue order allowing one advance increment as before or as if the Government notification had not been issued pursuant to which individual notices were issued.
8. Subsequently, the Government issued another notification dated 21.07.2016 issued by the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to Inspector of Schools (All), KDC, Panbazar informing them that as the Court has quashed the notification dated 22.10.2014, all the Assistant Teachers are entitled to get one advance increment for acquiring B. Ed degree provided that he/she had joined before 03.07.2012 or obtained B. Ed degree from UGC recognized university and NCTE approved B. Ed colleges.
9. We have also noted that this Court has not stayed the order dated 16.02.2016 passed in WP(C) No.6241/2015 and during pendency of the appeal, the Government themselves have issued the aforesaid notifications
Page No.# 4/4
regarding compliance of the Court’s order. Further, the State-Appellants have not questioned the authenticity or veracity of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioners (respondents herein).
10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that no practical purpose will be served by continuing the proceeding inasmuch as the writ petitioners (respondents herein) are primarily concerned with the relief which they were seeking before this Court which appears to have already been granted. Mr. Purakayastha, learned counsel, also submits that the writ petitioners (respondents herein) have, indeed, got the benefit. If that is so, perhaps nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. Whatever exercise we may undertake will therefore be essentially an academic one.
11. We, accordingly, close this appeal as infructuous. However, the questions of law involved in this proceeding are kept open and nothing prevents the State authorities to take necessary actions as regards grant of increment to B. Ed degree-holders as per Rules without in any way affecting the benefits in respect of the aforesaid 41 teachers (writ petitioners).
12. It is made clear that since this appeal pertains to aforesaid 41 graduate teachers, this order is confined to the aforesaid 41 teachers only.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Comparing Assistant
The State of Assam
Sri Durjoy Paul
N. Kotiswar Singh
Nani Tagia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
