Dismissed¶53

Tridip Sarmah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Mar 2025WA/232/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractual assistant teacher (General Mathematics) terminated by SMDC resolution 11.08.2015 and letter 12.08.2015 after POCSO FIR (Samaguri P.S. Case No. 318/2015, S.4 POCSO Act); representation rejected by Director of Secondary Education, Assam 31.05.2016; acquittal on benefit of doubt held not an honourable acquittal; delay in assailing rejection order defeats reinstatement; post-decision hearing availed; purely contractual engagement; writ appeal against Single Judge's dismissal dismissed; Gauhati High Court; WA/232/2024; Tridip Sarmah v. State of Assam; decided 13.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

It is not in dispute that the appellant's engagement as Assistant Teacher in the school was purely on contractual basis. ¶48

Tridip Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned Single Judge's judgment and order dated 11.01.2024 in WP(C) No. 3005/2020 dismissing the appellant's writ petition. +3 more

¶52

Court's answer

No illegality was found in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge; hence no interference was called for, and the writ appeal was dismissed.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

It is not in dispute that the appellant's engagement as Assistant Teacher in the school was purely on contractual basis.

¶48

Key takeaways

The appellant accepted the writ court's direction in WP(C) No. 18/2016 and filed a representation; his representation against the SMDC resolution dated 11.08.2015 and the termination letter dated 12.08.2015 was rejected by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam way back in 2016.ratio¶50
The appellant did not challenge the Director's rejection immediately but waited for the judgment of the criminal court, approaching the writ court only after his acquittal on benefit of doubt.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal WA/232/2024, Gauhati High Court (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ; Kaushik Goswami, J), decided 13.03.2025 — dismissed. The appellant, engaged on 14.08.2010 as a contractual Assistant Teacher (General Mathematics) by the SMDC of Sri Sri Pitambar Dev Goswami High School, Murhani, Nagaon, was released by SMDC resolution dated 11.08.2015 and termination letter dated 12.08.2015 (w.e.f. 10.08.2015) after an FIR (Samaguri P.S. Case No. 318/2015, S.4, POCSO Act, 2012) alleging sexual abuse of a minor. On the writ court's direction in WP(C) No. 18/2016 he represented before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, whose order dated 31.05.2016 declined reinstatement; he let that order go unchallenged and filed WP(C) No. 3005/2020 only on 29.07.2020, after acquittal on benefit of doubt (Special Judge, Nagaon, 28.08.2019). The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 11.01.2024. The Division Bench held the engagement purely contractual, endorsed the view that the acquittal was not an honourable acquittal, found the delay fatal, found no illegality in the impugned judgment, and dismissed the appeal.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010050982024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WA/232/2024

¶6

TRIDIP SARMAH

¶7

SON OF LATE KHAGEN SARMAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHALCHALI, POST OFFICE- CHALCHALI, POLICE STATION- SAMAGURI, DISTRICTNAGAON, ASSAM. PIN-782141.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM, KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NAGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE NAGAON, DIST. NAGAON ASSAM, PIN-782001.

¶12

4:THE MEMBER SECRETARY / HEADMASTER SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SRI SRI PITAMBAR DEV GOSWAMI HIGH SCHOOL MURHANI, NAGAON REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY/HEADMASTER SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SRI SRI PITAMBAR DEV GOSWAMI HIGH SCHOOL MURHANI NAGAON, VILL. MOURACHOOK P.O. CHALCHALI, DIST. NAGAON

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

ASSAM, PIN-782141.

¶15

5:HEADMASTER SRI SRI PITAMBAR DEV GOSWAMI HIGH SCHOOL MURHANI NAGAON, VILL. MOURACHOOK P.O. CHALCHALI, DIST. NAGAON ASSAM, PIN-782141

¶16

-BEFORE-

¶17

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶18

For petitioner(s)/appellant(s): Mr. T. Deuri, Advocate

¶19

For respondent(s) : Ms. H. Terangpi,

¶20

SC, Education (Secondary) Deptt.

¶21

Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of judgment : 13.03.2025

¶22

J UDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶23

( Vijay Bishnoi, CJ )

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage itself.

¶26

This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 11.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3005/2020, filed by the appellant herein.

¶27

By way of the above-referred writ petition, the appellant challenged the resolution adopted by the School Management and Development Committee (for short, “SMDC”) of Sri Sri Pitambar Dev Goswami High School, Murhani, Nagaon, whereby the services of the appellant, who was working in the said school as an Assistant Teacher in General Mathematics, on contractual basis, were terminated. In

¶28

Page No.# 3/6

¶29

the writ petition, the appellant also challenged the validity of the letter dated 12.08.2025, issued by the President & Headmaster/Member Secretary of the SMDC of the aforementioned school, in consequence of the resolution dated 11.08.2015, adopted by the SMDC of the said school as well as the order dated 31.05.2016, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that on 14.08.2010, the SMDC of the aforementioned school appointed the appellant as an Assistant Teacher on contractual basis, in the subject of General Mathematics for a period of one year. The said contractual appointment of the appellant was extended from time to time till his disengagement from service. While the appellant was working in the said school as Assistant Teacher, an FIR was lodged against him on 09.08.2015 with the allegation that he had sexually abused the minor daughter of the complainant, at whose instance the FIR was lodged on 09.08.2015 at Samaguri Police Station, as Samaguri P.S. Case No. 318/2015, under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The appellant was arrested on 10.08.2015 in connection with the aforementioned criminal case and, on 09.11.2015 he was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaon.

¶31

However, in the meantime, the SMDC of the above-referred school had already passed a resolution on 11.08.2015 for releasing the appellant from the contractual engagement. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the SMDC, the President and Headmaster/Member Secretary of the SMDC, issued a letter dated 12.08.2015 terminating the contractual engagement of the appellant w.e.f. 10.08.2015.

¶32

Being aggrieved with the order dated 12.08.2015, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 18/2016, which was disposed of by the writ court vide order dated 28.01.2016 by directing the appellant to prefer a representation before the Director of Secondary Education Assam. However, the representation filed by the appellant was rejected by the Director of Secondary

¶33

Page No.# 4/6

¶34

Education vide order dated 31.05.2016.

¶35

Thereafter, the appellant kept quite till 2020 and, ultimately filed another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3005/2020, that too, after his acquittal by the competent criminal court in connection with the criminal case put to trial pursuant to the FIR lodged against him on 09.08.2015.

¶36

The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also after taking into consideration the fact that the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal proceedings was not an honourable acquittal but the appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt, has dismissed the writ petition.

¶37

While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the delay in filing the writ petition against the impugned orders. The operative portions of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3005/2020 are reproduced hereunder:

¶38

“ 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶39

11. The petitioner was admittedly appointed as a contractual teacher and was continuing in such capacity basing on the policy of the Government in this connection. The petitioner was entangled in a criminal case and he came to be placed under arrest in connection thereof. The authorities of the School in question, on considering the conduct of the petitioner and taking a view that continuance of the petitioner in the School in question would be adverse to its educational environment, proceeded to adopt a resolution towards terminating his services in its meeting held on 11.08.2015. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide communication dated 12.08.2015. The petitioner had approached this Court by instituting WP(C) No.18/2016 and this Court, basing on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had disposed of the said writ petition at the motion stage itself by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by way of filing a representation. The petitioner then approached the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by way of filing a representation dated 04.01.2016.

¶40

12. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam thereafter heard the petitioner on 11.03.2016 and disposed of his representation vide order dated 31.05.2016 holding that given the background involved, it was not thought appropriate to direct reinstatement of the petitioner in the School. What is to be

¶41

Page No.# 5/6

¶42

noted at this stage is that after passing of the order dated 31.05.2016, the petitioner had not instituted any proceeding assailing the said order dated 31.05.2016. The petitioner waited till the disposal of the criminal case against him. On perusal of the judgment & order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagaon, it is seen that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him therein on benefit of doubt.

¶43

13. The inaction on the part of the petitioner in assailing the order dated 31.05.2016 by way of an appropriate application before this Court or an appropriate forum and the time lapse occasioning thereafter, the right of the petitioner to be continued in his contractual engagement does not subsist. The petitioner was not active in having his rights adjudicated at the appropriate time and after such long lapse of time, the petitioner cannot be reinstated in his service. The reasoning as advanced in the communication dated 12.08.2015 as well as in the order of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam dated 31.05.2016 are germane to the issue and no error has been committed by either the School Management and Development Committee in issuing the communication dated 12.08.2015 and/or by the Director of Secondary Education in issuing the order dated 31.05.2016.

¶44

14. The facts as existing in the matter coupled with the delay on the part of the petitioner in assailing the order dated 31.05.2016 till the institution of the present proceeding on 29.07.2020, negates the right of the petitioner for a direction to be reinstated in his contractual employment. The petitioner having been afforded an opportunity of hearing in pursuance to the directions of this Court and he having availed of the said opportunity, the petitioner cannot be held to contend that the post decision hearing granted to him is not sufficient. The petitioner was never appointed on regular basis but was appointed on contractual basis.

¶45

15. In view of the said position and the conduct of the petitioner emanating from the records of the matter and the fact that he was only acquitted on benefit of doubt in the criminal proceeding instituted against him, I do not think it is a fit case wherein a direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his contractual engagement. In view of the conclusions reached by me basing on the facts involved in the present proceeding, the decisions as referred to by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties are not alluded to.

¶46

16. Accordingly, the contentions of the petitioner being held to be without any merit, the writ petition does not merit acceptance and the same stands dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.”

¶47

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the engagement of the appellant as Assistant Teacher in the aforementioned school was purely on contractual basis. The appellant’s case

¶49

Page No.# 6/6

¶50

before the learned Single Judge was that he was disengaged from the contractual engagement without providing any opportunity of hearing. However, when the said plea was raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 18/2016, the writ court relegated the appellant to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, by directing the appellant to file representation before the said authority. The appellant did not challenge the order passed by the writ court but accepted the same and filed representation before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. The representation filed by the appellant against the resolution dated 11.08.2015, passed by the SMDC of the school, as well the letter dated 12.08.2015 issued by the President and Headmaster/Member Secretary of the SMDC was rejected by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, way back in the year 2016.

¶51

However, the appellant did not challenge the same immediately but waited for the judgment of the criminal court and approached the writ court only after the criminal court acquitted him on benefit of doubt. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the acquittal of the appellant of the criminal proceedings was not an honourable acquittal.

¶52

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, no interference is called for.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶54

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 11.01.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3005/2020 dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the termination of his contractual engagement and declining reinstatement.¶26
Gauhati High Court (learned Single Judge) · 11.01.2024
Prior proceeding
On 14.08.2010 the SMDC appointed the appellant as Assistant Teacher (General Mathematics) on contractual basis for one year; the appointment was extended from time to time till disengagement.¶30
Prior proceeding
FIR lodged on 09.08.2015 alleging sexual abuse of a minor; registered at Samaguri Police Station as Samaguri P.S. Case No. 318/2015 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.¶30
Prior proceeding
Appellant arrested on 10.08.2015 in the criminal case; released on bail on 09.11.2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaon.¶30
Prior proceeding
SMDC passed resolution dated 11.08.2015 for releasing the appellant from contractual engagement; pursuant thereto the President and Headmaster/Member Secretary issued termination letter dated 12.08.2015, effective w.e.f. 10.08.2015.¶31
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2015, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 18/2016 (order of writ court dated 28.01.2016); it was disposed of at the motion stage, granting liberty to approach the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by way of a representation.¶39
Prior proceeding
The Director of Secondary Education, Assam heard the petitioner on 11.03.2016 and rejected the representation vide order dated 31.05.2016, holding it not appropriate to direct reinstatement.¶40
Prior proceeding
After remaining inactive till 2020, and after acquittal by the competent criminal court, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 3005/2020.¶35
Prior proceeding
By judgment and order dated 28.08.2019 the learned Special Judge, Nagaon acquitted the petitioner of the charges on benefit of doubt.¶42
Prior proceeding
WP(C) No. 3005/2020 was instituted on 29.07.2020, after the order dated 31.05.2016 had gone unchallenged.¶44
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge dismissed WP(C) No. 3005/2020, treating the acquittal as one on benefit of doubt and taking note of the delay; no order as to cost.¶36

Tridip Sarmah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tridip Sarmah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Risadul Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Hemendra Nath Thakur Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dimpi Borah Vs Suruj Gogoi and 4 Ors.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs Rohit Karan Jain

Rajesh Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Bisal Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.