Remanded

Julen Doley v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Aug 2022WP(C)/853/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a school headmaster, sought provincialisation of services but was rejected due to a wrong DISE Code recorded by the District Scrutiny Committee. This court remanded the matter to the Director, Elementary Education Department, to verify the correct code and consider provincialisation within two months.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remanded to the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam, to verify the DISE Code and consider provincialisation within two months.

Julen Doley Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010013342022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/853/2022

¶5

JULEN DOLEY S/O CHENIRAM DOLEY P/R VILLAGE- NO. 1 TEKJURI PATHICHUK P.O. JIADHAL CHARIALI DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM PIN-787057

¶6

(HEAD MASTER OF CHENIRAM DOLEY M.E. SCHOOL)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19.

¶12

4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19.

¶13

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHEMAJI, ASSAM.

¶14

6:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI, ASSAM

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

¶18

ORDER

¶19

th 9 August, 2022

¶20

Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Bora, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. P. Saikia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6.

¶21

The petitioner is working as Headmaster of Cheniram Doley M.E. School, which was established in the year 1992 and recognized on 11-11-2005. The DISE Code of the school is captured as 18130285401 for the period 2009 to 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents to the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji for provincialisation of services of the Teachers/Tutors of the said school. The District Scrutiny Committee, in its report, recommended the provincialisation of the Teachers/Tutors of Cheniram Doley M.E. School. However, as the said school was not provincialised, the petitioner filed an application under the R.T.I before the competent authority and, on reply received against the said RTI application; it was found that the District Scrutiny Committee had recorded the wrong DISE Code of Cheniram Doley M.E. School as 8130285401 for the period 2009-10. The reason for non-provincialisation of the petitioner school was due to the submission of the wrong DISE Code by the District Scrutiny Committee. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

On perusal of the school report card for the year 2016-17 it is found that the DISE Code of the Cheniram Doley M.E. School is 18130285401, however, due to the wrong entry of the DISE Code by the District Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner’s school was not considered by the State Scrutiny Committee.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam, to consider the case of the petitioner’s school by examining all relevant records and also by obtaining report from the SSA, Assam, with regard to the DISE Code of Cheniram Doley M.E. School and thereafter pass a reasoned order and in accordance with law. In the event, the Director, Elementary Education Department finds that there is no discrepancy with regard to the petitioner’s school, the order of provincialisation with regard to the petitioner’s school may be considered at the earliest, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Julen Doley v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Julen Doley 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

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.

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

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

Tarifan Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.