Allowed

Rina Begum v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Nov 2022WP(C)/2592/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order withdrawing the petitioner's provincialisation as Assistant Teacher. The High Court quashed the order because it was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, holding that such a decision was incumbent upon notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13-02-2020 withdrawing provincialisation was set aside and quashed. Respondents are given liberty to proceed against petitioner in accordance with law.

Rina Begum Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010086792020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2592/2020

¶5

RINA BEGUM

¶6

W/O ABDUR RAHIM, R/O VILL. BADEUTTAR, P.O. BHANGA BAZAR, P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN 788701

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶10

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DSC KARIMGANJ

¶11

4:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION) KARIMGANJ

¶12

5:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KARIMGANJ

¶13

6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KARIMGANJ

¶14

7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY OFFICER BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ

¶15

Page No.# 2/6

¶16

8:DIPALI DEY W/O RATHINDRA CHANDRA DEY VILL. MIRJAPUR (GANGPAR) P.O. BHANGA BAZAR DIST. KARIMGANJ PIN 788701

¶17

9:YEASIN ALI S/O LATE ISMAIL ALI R/O VILL. BADEUTTAPUR P.O. BHANGA BAZAR DIST .KARIMGANJ ASSAM. PIN 78870

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

01-11-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent No.9. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 8 despite service of notice.

¶24

2 . The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01-10-1996 at Kurban Ali L.P. School. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was provincialised by order dated 14-05-2013, in terms of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. The service of

¶25

Page No.# 3/6

¶26

the respondent No. 9 was also provincialised as Assistant Teacher of Kurban Ali L.P. School by order dated 20-11-2013.

¶27

3 . The provincialisation of the service of the respondent No. 9 was challenged by the respondent No. 8 in WP(C) No. 462/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29-07-2016 with the following directions:

¶28

“21. Having regard to the above, without disturbing the service of respondent No. 8 as Assistant Teacher of the school, matter is remanded back to the Director of Elementary Education to re-examine the matter regarding provincialisation of the post of Assistant Teacher in the school keeping in mind the rival claims of the petitioner and respondent No.8. Director shall consult the record of the case and if necessary, give opportunity of hearing to both petitioner and respondent No.8, whereafter a speaking order shall be passed by the Director with intimation to all concerned. Provincialization and continuance of service of respondent No. 8 as Assistant Teacher of the school would be subject to such decision that may be taken by the Director. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

Writ petition is disposed of.”

¶30

4 . Consequent to the order dated 29-07-2016, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 462/2014, the Director Elementary Education, Assam, passed an order dated 03-04-2019 and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

¶31

“In view of the above circumstances, the benefit of provincialisation of services granted to Yasin Ali vide this office order No. BPD/166/2013/27, dated 20/11/2013 is hereby withdrawn with immediate effect and as the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation and Services) Act, 2011 has struck down by the Hon’ble High Court order dtd. 23/09/2016 in WP(C) No. 3190/2012 Chandan Kumar Neog & 377 others, hence the BEEO, Karimganj is hereby instructed to place the matter of provincialisation of services of AT of Kurban Ali LP School before the DLSC concerned under the provision of new Act, 2017 i.e., “The Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017”.

¶32

5 . The order dated 03-04-2019, passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, was challenged by the respondent No. 9 in WP(C) No. 2861/2019. However, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 10-05-

¶33

Page No.# 4/6

¶34

Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 9 filed an appeal, which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 184/2018, which was also dismissed by order dated 26-07-2019.

¶35

6 . Thereafter, the case of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 was placed before the District Scrutiny Committee, Karimganj. The District Scrutiny Committee, in its meeting held on 11-09-2019, considered the matter and thereafter, passed a resolution, which is also reproduced hereinbelow:

¶36

“ Resolution of DSC(K)

¶37

Rina Begom is to be terminated as she passed HSLC in the year 2008, as because she failed to serve 10 years continuous services before provincialisation.

¶38

All the benefits availed by Rina Begom is required to be refunded.

¶39

Yeasin Ali should be reinstated as Asstt. Teacher and all the gap period benefits are required to be granted to him as his service has been provincialised by the DEE, Assam issue order vide No. EPD/166/2013/27 dtd. 20/11/2013.

¶40

The service of Dipali Dey may be considered as per New Act 2017 and she may replace Rina Begom.”

¶41

7 . Accordingly, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, by order dated 13-02-2020, under Memo No. EPD/H/76/2018/273-A, withdrew the provincialisation of services of the petitioner and the DEEO, Karimganj was instructed to submit the proposal for provincialisation of services of respondent No. 8 in place of the petitioner in Kurban Ali L.P. School as per the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017.

¶42

8 . Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the resolution No. 1 of the District Scrutiny Committee, Karimganj, in its meeting held on 11-092019 and the impugned order dated 13-02-2020 by which the provincialisation of the service of the petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that no opportunity of

¶43

Page No.# 5/6

¶44

hearing has been given to the petitioner.

¶45

9 . The respondent No. 2/Director of Elementary Education, Assam, has filed counter affidavit wherein, at paragraph 16, it is stated that the provincialisation of service of the petitioner was withdrawn due to the fact that when the petitioner was appointed by the SMC to Kurban Ali L.P. School, she was not having the requisite qualification of HSLC passed.

¶46

10 . After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner has passed HSLC examination in the year 2007. There is also no dispute with regard to the provincialisation of the service of the petitioner by the order dated 14-05-2013 as Head Teacher. It is only when the dispute between the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 arose and on the basis of the orders passed by this Court, that the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and, thereafter, the impugned resolution No. 1 in respect of the petitioner was taken by the District Scrutiny Committee, Karimganj, on 11-09-2019. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 13-02-2020 was issued withdrawing the provincialisation of service of the petitioner. Rightly or wrongly, the respondents have provincialised the service of the petitioner and, therefore, when the respondents took a decision to withdraw the provincialisation of the service of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondents to put the petitioner on notice. This has not been done and the order dated 13-02-2020 was passed behind the back of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing to her.

¶47

11 . In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13-02-2020, under Memo No. EPD/H/76/2018/273-A, is set aside and quashed.

¶48

12 . However, the respondents are given liberty to proceed against the petitioner if so advised, but such steps should be taken in accordance with law. The service of the respondent No. 9 is not disturbed at this stage.

¶49

Page No.# 6/6

¶50

13 . It is submitted, at this stage, that the salary of the petitioner has not been paid with effect from March, 2020 till date. The respondents shall also consider this aspect of the matter and if the petitioner is found eligible, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶51

14 . The writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Comparing Assistant

Rina Begum v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rina Begum v. the State of Assam and 8 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

Nur Jamal Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Baharul Alam Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Robiol Hoque @ Md. Robiol Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Balicherra M E Madrassa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Zakir Hussain Vs the Registrar, Gauhati University and Anr.

Dulal Bora Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.