Disposed

Mainul Hoque Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Nov 2022WP(C)/5211/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the provincialisation of teacher services, the Gauhati High Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14 of the Assam Education Act, 2017 before the State Government and further directed the appellate authority to decide within two months after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ordered the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14 of the Act, 2017 within 15 days; directed the appellate authority to decide within 2 months after hearing.

Mainul Hoque Choudhury Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010155982021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5211/2021

¶5

MAINUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY

¶6

S/O LATE SORAB ALI SK, R/O VILL-MATIABAG, P.O.-GAURIPUR, DISTDHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

3:DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301

¶13

5:SMTI. HANOWARA KHATUN W/O ABDUL MALEQUE R/O VILL-DEBATTAR HASDAHA PART-V P.O.-DEBATTAR HASDAHA DIST-DHUBRI

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM PIN-783334

¶16

6:SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION (SSA) ASSAM REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MISSION DIRECTOR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

04-11-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4; Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. D. A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Science Teacher of Charjugipara M.E. School and was appointed on 17.05.2000. The respondent No. 5 is also a Science & Mathematics Teacher having graduate degree and was appointed on 16.03.2008.

¶25

The appointment of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 was given provisional approval by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri by

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

order dated 21.04.2008 as Assistant Teacher and Science Teacher respectively.

¶28

The DISE Code for the year 2009-2010 indicates that the petitioner is a Science Teacher under Code 7 and the respondent No. 5 is a Mathematics Teacher under Code 3.

¶29

Again in the DISE Code for the year 2017-2018, the petitioner was shown as a Science Teacher under Code 7 and his date of joining as 17.05.2000 and the respondent No. 5 was shown as a Mathematics & Science Teacher under Codes 3 & 7 and her date of joining as 16.03.2008.

¶30

Thereafter, when the case of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 was placed before the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialisation of their services, the District Scrutiny Committee recommended the case of the petitioner as a language teacher and the respondent No. 5 as a Mathematics & Science Teacher.

¶31

However, the State Level Scrutiny Committee rejected the case of the petitioner and instead provincialised the service of the private respondent No. 5 by the Notification dated 04.02.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam.

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved with the provincialisation of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that he is senior to the respondent No. 5 and therefore, his case should have been provincialised, however, his legitimate claim has not been considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

¶33

Section 14 of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of the Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 provides for an Appeal before the State Government in the concerned Administrative

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

Department against the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

¶36

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal under Section 14 of the Act, 2017 before the Secretary of the concerned Department within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. Thereafter, the concerned appellate authority shall consider the appeal of the petitioner after consulting all the relevant records and also by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 and thereafter, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶37

Let such exercise be completed by the appellate authority within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner.

¶38

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Mainul Hoque Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainul Hoque Choudhury v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Tahera Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mridula Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dipak Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Devananda Naohalia @ Debendu Naohalia and 2 Ors. Vs Preetom Saikia

Rinky Kumari Baroi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dharani Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.