Mofida Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010105032019

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:363

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3388/2019

¶6

MOFIDA KHATUN

¶7

WIFE OF MOFIDUL ISLAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KOKILA PART-I, P.O. KOKILA, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783392.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019.

¶12

4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL BONGAIGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE BONGAIGAON ASSAM. PIN- 783390.

¶13

5:THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021.

¶14

6:THE SECRETARY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI- 781021.

¶15

7:THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF CHALAKURA JANAPRIYA HIGH MADARASSA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.O. KOKILA BAZAR DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783392.

¶16

8:MAINUL HAQUE SON OF SHOSHED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGEMATRAGHOLA P.O. KIRTANPARA DISTRICT BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783384

¶17

Page No.# 2/6

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MD. I H KHAN,MR. N UDDIN,MS. N NASRIN

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU.,SC, SEBA,MR J ISLAM (R7,R8)

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶21

Date of hearing : 09.01.2025

¶22

Date of Judgment : 09.01.2025

¶23

Judgment & order(Oral)

¶24

Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Deepanjalee Das Barman, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; Mr. Nayanjyoti Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 & 4; and Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel; appearing on behalf of respondents No. 7 & 8. However, none has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 5, 6 & 7.

¶25

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 25.03.2019, issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, wherein, the School headed by the respondent No. 8, herein, was held to be genuine the High Madrassa, recognized by the Board of Secondary Education.

¶26

3. As projected in the writ petition, the dispute in the present proceeding is with regard to the issue as to which of the 2(two) Schools having the same name i.e. Chalakura Janapriya High Mardrassa, run by the petitioner,

¶27

Page No.# 3/6

¶28

herein, and the respondent No. 8, herein, is the genuine School.

¶29

4. In pursuance of the directions passed by this Court in a writ appeal being WA No. 155/2018 vide order, dated 10.12.2018; the Board of Secondary Education, had examined the genuineness of the 2(two) schools involved, running under the same name.

¶30

5. On such examination being carried-out, the Board of Secondary Education was of the view that the Chalakura Janapriya High Mardrassa headed by the respondent No. 8, herein, was the genuine High Madrassa which was also recognized by the Board of Secondary Education.

¶31

6. The consequence of such declaration made by the Board of Secondary Education, would be that the teachers of the school, headed by the respondent No. 8, herein, would now be entitled to be considered for provincialization of their services and the petitioner, herein, would be now taken-out of the purview of such exercise of provincialization. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, had submitted an appeal in the matter.

¶32

7. In the meantime, the jurisdictional District Level Committee had recommended the teaching and non-teaching staff of Chalakura Janapriya High Mardrassa school headed by the respondent No. 8, herein, for provincialization of their services.

¶33

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, had instituted the said appeal praying for interference with the recommendations made by the

¶34

Page No.# 4/6

¶35

jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, BDC, Bongaigaon, in respect of the school headed by the respondent No. 8, herein.

¶36

9. During the course of the deliberations in the present proceeding and the materials brought on record being highlighted before this Court; this Court was of the considered view that the issue so arising in the present proceeding, cannot be decided in a summary manner and the same can only be decided after the evidence is so received.

¶37

10. The said exercise is only permissible to be now carried-out by a designated Educational Tribunal. The provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, more particularly, Section 19 thereof, has designated the Courts of the learned District & Sessions Judge and that of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge of each District as the Educational Tribunal for the purpose of adjudication of disputes for redressal of grievances relating to the teaching staff of the venture educational institutions including their such claim for provincialization of services.

¶38

11. In the present case, the provincialization of the teachers of Chalakura Janapriya High Mardrassa would depend upon the determination as to which of the 2(two) schools run under the same name, is the genuine school. Accordingly, the said determination would have a bearing on the provincialization of the services of the teachers of the school, found to be the genuine school.

¶39

Page No.# 5/6

¶40

12. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have also agreed to the said position. However, the learned counsel for respondent No. 8, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, be required to approach the jurisdictional Educational Tribunal within a fixed time-frame.

¶41

13. In view of the above position; the petitioner, herein, is directed to approach the jurisdictional Educational Tribunal by staking a claim for being extended with the benefits of provincialization of her service by establishing before the Educational Tribunal that it is the petitioner’s school which is the genuine school.

¶42

14. The petitioner, would, in the proceeding now required to be instituted by her before the jurisdictional Educational Tribunal, in addition to impleading the departmental authorities; also implead the respondents No. 7 & 8, herein, as party respondents.

¶43

15. The Educational Tribunal would, thereafter, basing on the materials coming on record and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the proceeding i.e. petitioner, and respondents No. 7 & 8, herein, proceed to determine as to which of the 2(two) schools involved, is the genuine school and thereafter, direct the respondent authorities to provincialize the services of the teaching staff of such school under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017.

¶44

16. For the above purpose, the petitioner, herein, shall approach the jurisdictional Educational Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today. Thereafter, the Educational Tribunal shall expeditiously conclude the

¶45

Page No.# 6/6

¶46

proceeding so initiated before it and pass appropriate directions thereon.

¶47

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

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Mofida Khatun v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mofida Khatun v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Manoj Kr Chowhan Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Bhakta Kumar Bora Vs Kanti Khataniar and 7 Ors.

Dipti Prasad Pegu and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Sultana Rejiya Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rakibul Islam Mazumder Vs the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dulal Krishna Bhatta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.