Kanika Borkakati and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010259982018

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:4871

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/8151/2018

¶6

KANIKA BORKAKATI AND 8 ORS.

¶7

W/O- AMIYA KANTI SARKAR, R/O- BILASIPARA, WARD NO. 7, P.O AND P.SBILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348

¶8

2: HABEZ ALI S/O- SORBAT ALI VILL- SAGUNMARI PT-I P.O- KODOMTOLA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348

¶9

3: JESMINA BEGUM W/O- ABDUL LATIF AHMED VILL- BANDHABPARA P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348

¶10

4: MOHILA KHATUN W/O- ABDUL JALIL AHMED VILL- BANDHABPARA P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783348

¶11

5: RUMA KHATUN W/O- ABDUL JABBAR AHMED VILL- BANDHABPARA P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/7

¶13

PIN- 783348

¶14

6: KAILASH CHANDRA PRODHANI S/O- NRIPENDRA NATH PRODHANI VILL- BIDYARDABRI PT-3 P.O- BIDYARDABRI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783335 7: SHAHENA KHATUN D/O- ABDUL RAHMAN MONDAL VILL- JHAPUCHABARI P.O AND P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334

¶15

8: ALIN CHANDRA ROY S/O- KSHIRENDRA NARAYAN ROY VILL- NIDANI P.O- BAHALPUR P.S- CHAPAR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783371

¶16

9: GAUTAM ROY S/O- KSHIRENDRA NARAYAN ROY VILL- NIDANI P.O- BAHALPUR P.S- CHAPAR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78337

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶19

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY06

¶20

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM EDUCATION (ELEM) DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 06

¶21

Page No.# 3/7

¶22

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 06 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 6:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE DHUBRI DISTRICT REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM COMMISSIONER LOWER ASSAM DIVISION GUWAHATI- 0

¶23

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR. A ISLAM

¶24

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU,SC, FINANCE

¶25

BEFORE

¶26

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

02.04.2026

¶29

Heard Mr. H.R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5, Ms. R.M. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 6.

¶30

2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶31

Page No.# 4/7

¶32

“In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a notice upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari / Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to re-verify or re-scrutinize the particulars of the petitioners and to prepare a fresh report by incorporating the names of the petitioners either in the category of (i) recommended and working till date or under category of (ii) not recommended but working till date and or direct the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary Schools under Elementary Education Department, Assam considering their more than 18 years continuous services against sanctioned vacant posts in terms of the advertisement published on 04-02-2012 and / or to direct the respondent authorities to release the monthly salaries of the petitioners from their date of joining to till regularization of their services and / or cause or causes being shown upon hearing the parties on perusal of the records be pleased to make the Rule absolute by providing complete and adequate relief to the petitioner and /or pass such order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper

¶33

-AND-

¶34

Pending disposal of the case, there shall not be bar to regularize the services of the petitioners in the interest of Justice.”

¶35

3. The respondents have not filed their counter affidavit till date and Mr. H.R Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a similar matter has been taken up an disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, the instant case may be disposed of in similar lines. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 05.11.2019 passed in WP(C) NO.94/2019 (Abdul Qadir and three others –vs- State of Assam and five others).

¶36

4. In order to understand the sum and substances, the order passed on 05.11.2019, the same may be reproduced hereunder:-

¶37

“Heard Mr. H. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education

¶38

Page No.# 5/7

¶39

Department; Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department

¶40

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider their claim for regular appointment in terms of the direction of this Court issued in WP(C) No. 1048/2004 on 02.03.2010.

¶41

This Court passed the order on 02.03.2010 in the aforesaid writ petition and issued the direction, which reads as follows:

¶42

“To make the resolution that will now be attempted by the Court appointed committee effective and fruitful, we direct that in the event the appointment of any of the petitioner is found to be legal and valid, the same will carry an obligation on the part of the State Government to pay salary to such petitioner(s) and in the event such appointments are found to be illegal, it will be open for the State to take appropriate action in accordance with law. We also make it clear that it will be open for the State to frame a policy, in accordance with law, for eventual accommodation of the 3281 Nos. of illegally appointed teachers who have been identified on field verification to be working if the State is so inclined.”

¶43

The petitioners claim that petitioners fall within the category of not validly appointed but have been serving as the Assistant Teachers based on appointment orders issued by the authorities which were considered to be not valid by the authorities. There were many other such similar cases, validity of whose appointments were questioned by the State authorities. It led to a series of cases culminating in the said writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1048/2004, in which the aforesaid direction was issued.

¶44

From the above, it is clear that this Court had opened a window of opportunity for these illegally appointed teachers who were working in the schools to be considered for regularization by the State Government, if the State Government was so inclined. In other words, though no specific direction was issued by this Court, it was left to the authorities to consider regularization of such illegally appointed teachers if the Government so wished.

¶45

Pursuant to the said observation and direction, the State Government did initiate the process to consider regularization of such illegal teachers and accordingly, formed a Screening Committee. It appears that the Screening Committee ascertained those validly appointed teachers and

¶46

Page No.# 6/7

¶47

those who were not validly appointed, and prepared a list of teachers who were not recommended for appointment by the Screening Committee but those who were found working on the date of consideration by the said Committee. There is a category of teachers who though were not recommended for appointment by the concerned Screening Committee, were found to be actually rendering service. The Government is in process to consider case of such category of teachers.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that unfortunately, though the petitioners were actually working as also certified by the concerned Headmasters of the schools, the said certificates were not considered and considering them to be not working, their names have not been included in the aforesaid list prepared by the Committee of those not recommended by the Screening Committee but who were found to be working.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners were left out from such list for obvious reasons, their cases will not be considered by the authority for regularization and accordingly, has sought for a direction from this Court to include the name of the petitioners amongst the list of those teachers who were not recommended by the Screening Committee but found to be working.

¶50

As to whether the petitioners were working or not, is a pure question of fact which this Court is not inclined to examine. This Court has felt that it would be more appropriate if the authorities themselves ascertain the claim made by the petitioners that they are still working and could have been included in the list of such similarly situated teachers for further consideration of regularization.

¶51

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit detail representations to the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam so that the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam upon consideration of such representation with the supporting documents may take a decision as to whether the petitioners were working at the time of consideration by the Committee so that, in the event, they are found to be working, their names may be included amongst those teachers who are not validly appointed but were found to be working so that their cases for regularization can be considered in terms of the observation and direction of this Court issued in the aforesaid writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1048/2004.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners will

¶53

Page No.# 7/7

¶54

submit a detail representation to the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam within one week with the certified copy of this order.

¶55

The authorities accordingly will do the needful in terms of the observation and direction made above.”

¶56

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that the instant writ petition may be disposed of in similar lines. Learned counsel for respondents also agree with the same.

¶57

6. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the writ petitioners to submit a detailed representation along with supporting documents before the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Assam within a period of 15(fifteen) days from today and the said authority upon receipt of the same shall consider the representation and take a decision as to whether the petitioners were working at the time of consideration by the Screening Committee concerned and in the event it is found that they have been working, their names may be included amongst those teachers who were not appointed, but are found to be working so that their cases for regularization can be considered in terms of the observation made by this Court also in an earlier writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 1048/2004 which was disposed on 02.03.2010.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Kanika Borkakati and 8 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanika Borkakati and 8 Ors. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Anurudhay Bayan Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Badal Khan Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Putul Kumar Nath Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Debajyoti Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Prameswar Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anowara Khatun Vs Narayan Konwar and 5 Ors.