Abul Kalam Azad Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Heard Mr. M. A. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6; and Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶22

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.03.2026 issued by the Additional District Commissioner (Education), Darrang, by which the petitioner has been attached to No.4 Baruajhar L.P. School, and the subsequent communication dated 02.06.2026 issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Dalgaon Sialmari, whereby the petitioner has been directed to join the attached post within 2 days.

¶23

3. The petitioner contends that, as per Section 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Schedule appended thereto, the school where he is presently working, i.e., Chakragaon L.P. School, is short of one teacher as per the pupil-teacher ratio. Despite being aware of the fact that the petitioner's school is suffering from a shortage of teachers and that the attachment would adversely affect the teacher-student ratio prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the impugned order was issued. The further contention of the petitioner is that the Additional District Commissioner (Education) has no authority to issue the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2026.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

4. However, at this stage, Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, inadvertently, the petitioner did not approach the competent authority, i.e., the Director of Elementary Education, for reconsideration of the impugned order. Therefore, he prays that liberty be granted to him to approach the appropriate authority, i.e., the Director of Elementary Education, for submission of a representation and, in the meantime, he may not be released pursuant to the impugned attachment order dated 12.03.2026 and subsequent communication dated 02.06.2026.

¶26

5. The learned counsel for the respondents raises no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, however, subject to confirmation that the petitioner is still serving at the earlier place, i.e., Chakragaon L.P. School.

¶27

6. In view of the above and as agreed upon by learned counsel for both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to make a representation before the appropriate authority for consideration of his attachment from Chakragaon L.P. School to No.4 Baruajhar L.P. School. School within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and upon receipt of such representation, the respondent authority shall dispose of the same within a further period of two weeks thereafter.

¶28

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that, till the disposal of the representation, as stated above, the petitioner shall not be relieved pursuant to the order dated 12.03.2026 and the subsequent communication dated 02.06.2026, if he has not already been relieved.

¶29

8. In view of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Abul Kalam Azad v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abul Kalam Azad v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Kanchan Narzary Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Mazibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pranab Goswami Vs the State of Assam

Matlebuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Anup Kumar Nath Vs Nabadeep Pathak, Acs

MD Rustom Ali Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.