Phukan Lal Baishya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010066442020

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2462/2020

¶6

PHUKAN LAL BAISHYA AND ANR.

¶7

S/O- LT. KESHAB BAISHYA, R/O- VILL- KHARKALDI, P.O. BANPURA, P.S. MUKALMUA, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM

¶8

2: MD. ALI AKBAR TALUKDAR S/O- MD. MAKBUL HUSSAIN R/O- VILL- NO. 2 LARKUCHI P.O. LARKUCHI P.S. MUKALMUA DIST.- NALBARI ASSA

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NALBARI P.O. AND DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM

¶14

4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BARKHETRI MUKALMUA DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM

¶15

5:SHUFIA SIKDAR @ SUFIA SIKDAR

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

W/O- ABDUL HAMID VILL NO. 2 LARKUCHI P.O. LARKUCHI DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM 6:MD. SAFIQUL ISLAM S/O- MD. ASRAF ALI VILL NO. 2 LARKUCHI P.O. LARKUCHI DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM 7:THE HEADMASTER-CUM-SECRETARY BELBELI LARKUCHI MILAN M.E. MADRASSA P.O. LARKUCHI DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 78113

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K SARMAH, MS. A TALUKDAR

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU,

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶21

ORDER

¶22

11.06.2025

¶23

Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶24

2. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that this Court, vide order dated 21.05.2025 had observed that notice upon the respondent nos. 5 and 6 was complete.

¶25

3. The approach to this Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against an order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Education Tribunal, Nalbari, whereby the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

of limitation.

¶28

4. The case, in hand, has a chequered history. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/5017/2013 with regard to the aspect of provincialisation of their services vis-a-vis the private respondents as per the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, vide an Act of the State Legislature, Education Tribunals were constituted. Consequently, the said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 24.05.2018 whereby the matter was remanded to the learned Education Tribunal.

¶29

5. It is the case of the petitioner that since there were certain errors in the judgment regarding the serial number, IA(C)/3607/2018 was filed by the petitioners which was disposed of on 15.12.2018 making the aforesaid correction and also with an observation that the order passed in the aforesaid IA should be read as the part of the order dated 24.05.2018. The learned Tribunal, however vide the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 had dismissed the case of the petitioners on the ground of limitation.

¶30

6. I have heard Ms. A Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri G Pegu, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam.

¶31

7. As noted above, the private respondents, who have been served, have chosen not to appear in this proceeding.

¶32

8. Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that the cause of action was espoused in the year 2013 itself and was a continuous one and by the order of remand of this Court dated 24.05.2018, the matter was to be

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

adjudicated by the concerned Education Tribunal. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it was not a new lis which was instituted and rather, the continuation of the lis which was initially instituted in this Court by way of a writ proceeding, being WP(C)/5017/2013. Reference has also been made by the learned counsel to the order dated 15.12.2018 passed in the connected IA(C)/3607/2018 by which, certain corrections were made in the initial order dated 24.05.2018 along with an observation that the same be treated as a part of the principal order.

¶35

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners, accordingly submits that the aspect of limitation should not have come in for consideration and even if the same was considered, the limitation should have to be reckoned from the date of passing of the order dated 15.12.2018 in the aforesaid IA. It is submitted that the approach to the learned Education Tribunal was made on 29.08.2019, which was within a year from the date of passing of the order dated 15.12.2018 by this Court in the aforesaid IA.

¶36

10. Shri Pegu, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the approach taken by the learned Tribunal cannot be deemed to be erroneous as reasons have been prescribed and provisions of the Limitation Act have been taken into consideration.

¶37

11. The cause of action was espoused in this Court by way of filing a WP(C)/5017/2013 way back in the year 2013, which continued and in the meantime, Education Tribunals were constituted pursuant to an Act of the State Legislature. In view of the aforesaid development, this Court had passed the order dated 24.05.2018 remanding the matter to the Education Tribunal wherein certain corrections were done in the initial order with a further observation to read the said order as a part of the principal order dated 24.05.2018.

¶38

12. The learned Tribunal, however had made a strict interpretation of the Limitation

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

Act. Even if Article 100 of the Limitation Act is taken into consideration, it appears that the approach to the Tribunal is within the prescribed period of limitation qua the order dated 15.12.2018 passed in the concerned IA. In any case, the rights of the parties approaching the Tribunal have to be adjudicated on merits and technicalities should not defeat the substantial cause of justice. This Court has also noted that this Court in the initial order dated 24.05.2018 had not decided the inter-se rights of the parties to the litigation on merits and had only remanded the matter to the concerned Education Tribunal and by the impugned order, the direction of this Court would not appear to have been brought to a logical conclusion whereby an adjudication on merits is required to be done by the concerned Tribunal.

¶41

13. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the learned Education Tribunal, Nalbari in Education Tribunal Case No.1/2019. The learned Tribunal is, accordingly directed to decide the case on merits in accordance with law.

¶42

14. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶43

15. It is clarified that no opinion on the inter-se merits of the parties is expressed in the present order.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Phukan Lal Baishya and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phukan Lal Baishya and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulal Chandra Sarma Vs Shri Rithwish Kumar Chaki and Ors.

Udipta Talukdar Vs the Gauhati University and 4 Ors.

Manash Kumar Sharmah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

The Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Raunak Hussain Vs Narayan Konwar and 2 Ors.

Minnatulla Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.