Disposed

Abdul Malek v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2022WP(C)/5632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought provincialisation of service as a teacher, claiming exclusion violated RTE norms. Court disposed of writ petition by directing him to file an administrative appeal for reconsideration of his file before the respondent department.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file appeal under Section 14 before Secretary, Education Deptt.; to consider records and pass reasoned order within two months.

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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010166732022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5632/2022

¶5

ABDUL MALEK

¶6

S/O LATE ALI AKBAR, R/O VILL-PHULKAKATA PART-I, P.O.MOTHEKHOWA, P.S.-SOUTH SALMARA, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783127

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶9

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

¶10

3:DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM

¶11

4:DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOLS DHUBRI TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DIST-DHUBRI

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

ASSAM

¶14

5:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOLS TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-DIRECTOR (ELEMENTARY) EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶15

6:ABDUL KADER AHMED C/O MONTRIRCHAR BOLDIAR ALGA M.E. MADRASSA VILL-MONTRIRCHAR P.O.-MUTHAKHOWA DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783323

¶16

7:ABBAS ALI SK C/O MONTRIRCHAR BOLDIAR ALGA M.E. MADRASSA VILL-MONTRIRCHAR P.O.-MUTHAKHOWA DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783323

¶17

8:SHORBESH ALI SK C/O MONTRIRCHAR BOLDIAR ALGA M.E. MADRASSA VILL-MONTRIRCHAR P.O.-MUTHAKHOWA DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78332

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 05.09.2022

¶24

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as Arabic Teacher of Montrirchar Boldiar Alga M.E. Madrassa by appointment letter dated 23.08.1996. Petitioner accordingly joined as Arabic Teacher on 24.08.1996. While the petitioner was serving as such, the Government of Assam enacted the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institution), Act, 2017 (The Act of 2017 in short). In terms of the provision of the Act of 2017, the service particulars of all the teaching and non-teaching staff of Montrirchar Boldiar Alga M.E. Madrassa was submitted before the District Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the District Scrutiny Committee recommended six Teachers of Montrirchar Boldiar Alga M.E. Madrassa for provincialistaion of their services as Tutors and amongst these six Teachers, name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.6 against language subject. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered and in the list of provincialisation of services of Teachers/Tutors, only five Teachers of the Montrirchar Boldiar Alga M.E. Madrassa were provincialised without considering the case of the petitioner.

¶26

Aggrieved for non-consideration of the service of the petitioner for provincialisation, the petitioner is before this Court on the ground that the District Scrutiny Committee in its recommendation had indicated against the

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

name of the petitioner that for the year 2014 there were 171 enrolments, for the year 2015 there were 194 enrolments and for the year 2016 there were 162 enrolments. It is therefore the case of the petitioner that Section 3(1) (xi) provides creation of additional post where the enrolment is more than 100 in accordance with the norms and standard stipulated in the schedule under Section 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The petitioner therefore, submits that he has been discriminated by the concerned respondents as they have failed to apply the proviso to Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 2017.

¶29

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14 before the Secretary, Elementary Education Department, Govt. of Assam/respondent No.1 by annexing a copy of the writ petition along with all the annexures appended thereto within a period of 15(fifteen) days from today. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 on receipt of the appeal shall hear the petitioner in person and consider all relevant records and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the appeal.

¶30

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Malek v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Malek 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

Prabin Chandra Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Rustam Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Fakaruddin Ali Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Khayrul Bashar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mr. Nabul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Manoranjan Barman and 13 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.