Dismissed

Ayub Khan and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Dec 2023WP(C)/2241/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming discrimination as stipendiary teachers sought provincialization similar to another case. The Court dismissed the writ as not maintainable due to lack of substantive right, but advised petitioners to apply if a future government policy covers their category.

What did the court decide?

dismissal of writ petition not to bar future consideration under applicable government policy.

Ayub Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010057572021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2241/2021

¶5

AYUB KHAN AND ANR S/O- ALA BAKSH KHAN, VILL- SOUTH BHURAKATA, P.O. RADHA MADHAB HAT, P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR (ASSAM), PIN- 783131

¶6

2: MOHAZZAL HOQUE S/O- MOHAMMAD ALI VILL- BORBILA P.O. KALAPANI P.S. MANKACHAR DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR (ASSAM) PIN- 78313

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶10

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

¶11

3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301

¶12

4:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR P.O. HATSINGIMARI

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN- 783135 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR P.O. HATSINGIMARI DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78313

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 06.12.2023

¶20

Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. K. Borah, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

¶21

The petitioners in the present proceeding, were appointed as Stipendiary Teachers against the deputation vacancies of Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator(CRCC) vide order, dated 30.01.1996. They claim to have rendered services for a period of 10 years and thereafter, they were released from their services w.e.f. 15.06.2006 vide order of even date and they are thereafter not in service in any school.

¶22

The petitioners contend that the Government of Assam had formulated a policy for the category of teachers like the petitioners and had provincialized services of such persons similarly situated like the petitioners on a pick-and-choose basis and in this connection, refers to Annexure-6 order, dated 30.01.2021, pertaining to one Shri Sohidur Rahman Sarkar who the petitioners claim to be similarly situated with them.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

The present proceeding has been instituted alleging discrimination and a prayer has been made that the petitioners’ cases be also considered in the line of the consideration made in the case of Shri Sohidur Rahman Sarkar.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials made available on record.

¶26

The petitioners have themselves admitted that they have never held any substantive vacant post and they have only been working against deputation vacancies and their services were extended from time to time and eventually they were released from their services on 15.06.2006.

¶27

The petitioners do not have any substantive right to claim for an appointment in-asmuch as after 15.06.2006, they are not in employment and their earlier employment was only in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement. No right being found in the petitioners’ claim for being considered for appointment against any regular sanctioned post; I am of the considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶28

However, considering the submissions made by Mr. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the Government has formulated a policy for the category of teachers like the petitioners and in support of having referred to Shri Sohidur Rahman Sarkar who was provincialized vide order, dated 30.01.2021, it is hereby provided that the dismissal of this writ petition would not be a bar for the Government to consider the cases of the petitioners in the event there is a policy framed by the Government for such category of teachers and persons have been considered thereunder.

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

The petitioners for the said purpose, may approach the authorities by way of filing appropriate applications which would be given due consideration strictly under the policy said to be in place and stated to have been followed in the case of Shri Sohidur Rahman Sarkar vide order, dated 30.01.2021.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Ayub Khan and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Khan and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dolapara Me Madrassa Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dalapara Me Madrassa Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

MD Kamal Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Hamida Begum Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ratan Prasad Poddar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pradip Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.