Disposed

Alep Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Aug 2022WP(C)/2141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the non-consideration of the petitioner for provincialisation despite being named as a subject teacher. The Court noted a discrepancy between the petitioner's annexed report and the one annexed to an intervention application as a respondent. The Court held such discrepancies must be resolved by the administrative authority, not the Court, and directed parties to submit a c

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file an appeal before the Director of Elementary Education within two weeks with all relevant annexures for final verification and order.

Alep Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 6… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010055172021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2141/2021

¶5

ALEP UDDIN AHMED

¶6

S/O LATE MARFAT ALI, R/O VILL-DINGDINGA, P.O.-CHIRAKUTI, DISTDHUBRI, ASSAM-783330

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶11

3:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR PROVINCIALISATION KAHILIPARA

¶12

GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶13

4:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI (CHAIRMAN) OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DHUBRI PIN-783330

¶14

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI PIN-783330

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI PIN-783330

¶17

7:HATEM ALI KHAN S/O. BORHAN ALI KHAN R/O. VILL. GORANGTARY P.O. CHIRAKUTI P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM-783330

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 09.08.2022

¶23

Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniyar, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. Mr. P. Saikia, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

¶24

The petitioner claims to be the Founder Teacher of the Gourangtary Feskarmaru M.E. Madrassa and was subsequently upgraded as the Headmaster of the said School. The State Government of Assam enacted the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions), Act 2017, (Act of 2017 in short).

¶25

The District Scrutiny Committee considered the teachers of the said

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

Gourangtary Feskarmaru M.E. Madrassa and thereafter, made its recommendation for provincialisation of the 3(three) Teachers as Tutors. In the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed the Report of the District Scrutiny Committee at Annexure 7 (Page 24) and the petitioner is shown recommended as subject teacher, Social Science along with 2(two) other persons. The name of the respondent No.7 does not figure in the Report of the District Scrutiny Committee.

¶28

Thereafter, the Director of Elementary Education Department issued an order dated 05.02.2021, wherein, the name of one Nur Bahar Ali was provincialised as Tutor (Science). Being aggrieved for non-consideration of his case the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

The respondent No.7, as applicant has filed I.A No.2143/2021 and in the said IA, the respondent No.7/applicant has also annexed a communication dated 07.09.2021, written by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and addressed to the Senior standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department wherein, it is mentioned that the District Scrutiny Committee, Dhubri, recommended the names of 3(three) teaching staffs of Gourangtary Feskarmaru M.E. Madrassa for provincialisation of services as per the Act of 2017. Therein, the name of the respondent No.7 is shown at Sl. No.2. and the same is annexed as Annexure C at page 19.

¶30

The applicant further has annexed the report of District Scrutiny Committee, Dhubri, and therein, the name of the respondent No.7/applicant is shown recommended for Social Science subject.

¶31

After perusing the materials available in the writ petition as well as in the I.A No.2143/2021, this Court has found that there are 2(two) recommendations

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

of the District Scrutiny Committee, one which is annexed with the writ petition and the other which is the letter written by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam as well as the Report of District Scrutiny Committee in the I.A. Such discrepancy with regard to 2(two) sets of report of District Scrutiny Committee cannot be looked into by this Court and it has to be considered by the appropriate authority after going through all the necessary documents and relevant records.

¶34

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam within a period of 2(two) weeks from today. In the appeal, the petitioner shall annex a copy of the writ petition along with the Annexures as well as a copy of the IA No.2143/2021 along with all Annexures. Thereafter, the Director of Elementary Education Department, Assam/respondent No.2 shall hear the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7 in person and after verification of the relevant records, shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the appeal.

¶35

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Alep Uddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alep Uddin Ahmed 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

Bhupen Kumar Saharia and Anr. Vs Anurag Goel and 2 Ors.

Abdul Kadir Vs Moinul Haque Choudhury and 4 Ors.

Sailendra Nath Sarma Vs Preetam Saikia, IAS and 4 Ors.

Julen Doley Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dhanjit Barman Vs the State Level Eligibility Test Commission and 3 Ors.

Tarifan Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.