Disposed

Rustam Brahma v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2022WP(C)/5650/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A teacher seeking provincialisation of service where the earlier governing Act was declared null and void. The High Court directed the Director of Elementary Education to consider the petitioner's claim for provincialisation under the 2017 Act if eligible, with a time-bound directive to grant benefits if approved.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing Respondent No. 4 (Director of Elementary Education) to consider petitioner's claim for provincialisation under the 2017 Act and grant benefits within three months i

Rustam Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010169382022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5650/2022

¶5

RUSTAM BRAHMA

¶6

S/O SUSHIL KUMAR BRAHMA, VILL-TENGNAMARI, P.O.-FULGURI, DISTCHIRANG (B.T.R.), ASSAM, PIN-783372, ASSISTANT TEACHER (SCIENCE) OF FULGURI ANCHALIK M.E. SCHOOL, DIST-CHIRANG, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶10

3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶11

4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 5:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION B.T.C. DIST-KOKRAJHAR (BTR) ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

PIN-783370

¶14

6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CHIRANG KAJALGAON DIST-CHIRANG (BTR) ASSAM PIN-783385 7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SIDLI BLOCK DIST-CHIRANG (BTR) ASSAM PIN-783385 8:THE HEAD MASTER OF FULGURI ANCHALIK M.E. SCHOOL CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-78338

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS A BUJARBARUAH

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶17

B E F O R E

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶19

02-09-2022

¶20

Heard Mrs. A. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department for Respondents No.1, 3 and 4; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for Respondent No.2; and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC appears for Respondents No.5, 6 and 7.

¶21

The petitioner was appointed as a Science Teacher of Fulguri Ahcnalik

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

M.E. School, Chirang, on 17.03.2009, to which post he joined on 26.03.2008. Since then the petitioner has been serving as a Science Teacher in the said school.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that the school in which he is serving has already been provincialized. However, the services of the petitioner could not be provincialized as he was found to be not qualified. The said exercise was carried out on the basis of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Service) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2011’). However, the said Act of 2011 has been declared as null and void. In the meantime, a new enactment has already been made by the Government of Assam, namely Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Reorganization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2017).

¶25

In the meantime, the petitioner also acquired his B.Sc. Degree from Shobhit University, Merrut, within the specified period of time and, therefore, he claims provincialisation of his service under the provisions of the Act of 2017.

¶26

In the meantime, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam issued an advertisement on 31.05.2017 calling for applications from teachers whose educational institutions have already been provincialised as per the ‘Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, but whose services have not been provincialised, were allowed to submit their application for provincialisation of their services under the new Act of 2017. The petitioner, accordingly, made his application. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities, particularly Respondent No.4/ the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to consider the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service in terms of the Act of 2017. After considering the case of the petitioner, if the petitioner is found to be eligible for provincialisation under the Act of 2017, steps be taken to give the benefit of provincialiation to the petitioner at the earliest, but not later than three months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

¶29

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

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Rustam Brahma v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam Brahma v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Mayuri Hazarika Vs State of Assam and Ors.

Mayuri Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Umeswari Doley Vs Pratim Saikia and 3 Ors.

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

Fakaruddin Ali Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Md. Razak Ali Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.