Gauhati High Court
Korman Ali Sheikh vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 28 January, 2020
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010120552016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 6530/2016
1:KORMAN ALI SHEIKH
S/O ALABOX ALI SHEIKH VILL- GURGURIPARA, P.O. BONDIHANA P.S.
FAKIRGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. PIN - 783349.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -6.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI -19.
3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
CUM MEMBER SECRETARY
DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
DHUBRI
ASSAM.
4:THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
GURGURIPARA ISLAMIA M.E. MADRASSA
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
VILL- SALLMARA PART-IV
P.O. BONDIHANA DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 783349.
5:THE HEAD MASTER CUM SECRETARY
GURGURIPARA ISLAMIA M.E. MADRASSA
VILL SALLMARA PART-IV
P.O. BONDIHANA DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM PIN - 783349.
Page No.# 2/14
6:SHORIFUL ISLAM
S/O LT. HAJI SUKUR ALI DEWAN VILL- PADMERALGA
PT.I
P.O. PADMERALGA P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM PIN - 78334
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR
Linked Case : WP(C) 840/2016
1:MOYNUL HOQUE
S/O- SOHAR UDDIN
R/O VILL.- SALMARA
PART- IV
P.O.- BONDIHAN
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783349.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY- 6.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY- 19.
3:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CUM MEMBER SECY.
DIST. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
DHUBRI
ASSAM.
4:THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
GURGURIPARA ISLAMIA M.E. MADRASSA
Page No.# 3/14
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
VILL.- SALMARA PART- IV
P.O.- BONDIHANA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783349.
5:THE HEADMASTER CUM SECY.
GURGURIPARA ISLAMIA M.E. MADRASSA
VILL.- SALMARA PART- IV
P.O.- BONDIHANA
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783349.
6:SORIFUL ISLAM
S/O- LT. HAJI SUKUR ALI DEWANI
VILL.- PADMERALGA
PT.- I
P.O.- PADMERALGA
P.S.- FAKIRGANJ
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783349.
7:KORMAN ALI SHEIKH
S/O- ALABOX ALI SHEIKH
VILL.
- GURGURIPARA
P.O.- BONDIHANA
P.S.- FAKIRGAN
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783349.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H R KHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC
ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONR 1-3
Linked Case : WP(C) 852/2016
1:KORMAN ALI SHEIKH
S/O ALABOX ALI SHEIKH VILL- GURGURIAPARA
P.O. BONDIHANA P.S. FAKIRGAN
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM- PIN -783349
Page No.# 4/14
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI -19.
3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
CUM MEMBER SECRETARY
DIST. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
DHUBRI
ASSAM.
4:THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
GURGURIPARA ISLAMIA M.E. MADRASSA
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
VILL- SALMARA PART-IV
P.O. BONDIHANA
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 783349.
5:THE HEADMASTER CUM-SECRETARY
GURGURIPARA ISLAMIA M.E. MADRASSA
VILL- SALMARA PART-IV
P.O. BONDIHANA DIST. DHBURI
ASSAM
PIN - 783349.
6:SHORIFUL ISLAM
S/O LT. HAJI SUKUR ALI DEWANI
VILL- PAMERALGA
PT.I
P.O. PADMERALGA
P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN - 783349.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H R KHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.N GOSWAMI R- 4and5
Page No.# 5/14
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
ORDER
Date : 28-01-2020 Heard Mr. H. R. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department as well as Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6.
2. All these three writ petitions are intrinsically linked together by a common thread running through these writ petitions and, accordingly, these three writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The order impugned in WP(C) 840/2016 and WP(C) 852/2016 is an order dated 01.02.2016, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, by which, on the basis of an order dated 18.08.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) 5291/2014 and WP(C) 5366/2014, in which the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, took a decision as regards rival claims made by the contesting claimants, namely, Moynul Hoque, Korman Ali Sheikh and Shoriful Islam for the post of Assistant Teacher and Science Teacher and also for provincialisation of their services in terms of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, as amended in 2012.
4. The aforesaid contesting parties are the writ petitioners in these three writ petitions. Moynul Hoque, who is the writ petitioner in WP(C) 840/2016, was appointed as an Additional Teacher, Korman Ali Sheikh, i.e. the petitioner in WP(C) 852/2016 and WP(C) 6530/2016, was appointed as Assistant Teacher and Shoriful Islam, who is the respondent No. 6 in these writ petitions, was appointed as Science Teacher in the Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa, in the district of Dhubri, by the School Managing Committee of the aforesaid Madrassa as reflected in the impugned order. In fact, the impugned order dated 01.02.2016 distinctly reflects the claims and counter-claims of the parties and, thus, for a better appreciation of the case and in order to avoid repetition of facts, the impugned order is reproduced below:
"GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM Page No.# 6/14 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATIN, ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19 ORDER The order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 5366/2014 of Korman Ali Sheikh vs. State of Assam and WP(C) No. 5291/2014 of Moynul Hoque vs. State of Assam and Others whereby the Court directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and in terms of the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012 after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties involved in both the cases and till such decision of the DEE, Assam, the vacant post of Assistant Teacher and Science Teacher shall not be provincialised.
Seen the relevant records/documents pertaining to this case. Perused the report submitted by (R. Chouhury, Enquiry Officer cum Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Assam).
Heard the petitioners Korman Ali Sheikh, Moynul Hoque, respondent No. 7, Shoriful Islam, Headmaster, President of School Managing Committee of Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa, BEEO, Bilasipara and DEEO, Dhubri, were heard.
Findings:
From the statements/records, it has been found that the Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa was established on 25.12.1985 and recognised w.e.f. 01.01.1992. Thereafter, as per the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012, the post of Teaching and non-teaching staff of Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa was provincialised vide DEE's order under Memo No. EE (plan) Provn./Dhubri/Recog.UP/62/Pt-I/2013/74 dated 19.12.2013, keeping two posts - one Assistant Teacher and the Science Teacher post vacant as there were dispute over these two posts among the teachers, namely, Sri Moynul Hoque, Korman Ali Sheikh and Shoriful Islam.
1. Sri Moynul Hoque was appointed as Additional Teacher by the School Managing Committee vide Resolution No. 1 dated 13.04.1994 and he joined on 15.04.1994 which was approved by the DEEO, Dhubri, vide Memo No. EED-
71/Addl./Pt/95/3863-67 dated 01.08.1995. Thereafter his post was upgraded to the Page No.# 7/14 post of Science Teacher from the post of Additional Teacher to the post of Assistant Teacher vide School Managing Committee Resolution No. 1 dated 23.02.2011.
As per the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012, for provincialisation of services the persons should be appointed or upgraded before 01.01.2011. Sri Moynul Hoque was upgraded on 23.02.2011 i.e. after 01.01.2011. In view of this fact, the DEEO, Dhubri, rejected his claim to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order under Memo No. EED/104/WP(C) 3686/Recog/UP/2012/6942-A, dated 11.08.2014 issued in compliance with the Hon'ble High Court order dated 23.05.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 434/2014 - Moynul Hoque vs. State of Assam and others and WP(C) 5419/2013- Shoriful Islam vs. State of Assam and others.
2. Sri Korman Ali Sheikh HS(Sc.) was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the School Managing Committee vide Resolution No. 1 dated 01.07.1991 and his joined on 11.07.1991 which was approved by the DEEO, Dhubri, vide Memo No. EED-71/Pt- II/94/8723-26 dated 21.02.1995.
Another appointed letter has been shown to be issued by the School Managing Committee on 20.07.1991 appointing Korman Ali Sheikh as Science Teacher vide the same resolution of the School Managing Committee as mentioned above which seems to be doubtful as the signature of the Secretary, School Managing Committee, appears different from that seen in the earlier appointment letter dated 01.07.1991. Again, the second joining report shows the teacher joining on 11.07.1991 which is prior to the issue of the appointment letter.
In the particulars of employees in Upper Primary Schools submitted by the Headmaster cum Member Secretary of Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa and in the individual information to be furnished by each employee, the date of joining of Sri Korman Ali Sheikh has been mentioned as 11.07.1991. The DSC, Dhubri, recommended the name of Sri Korman Ali Sheikh for provincialisation of services.
3. Sri Shoriful Islam was appointed as Science Teacher vide School Management Committee Resolution No. 1 dated 16.11.2008 and he joined Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa on 17.11.2008. His post was approved by the DEEO, Dhubri, vide order Memo No. EED-71/Pt-VIII/2007-2008/4952 dated 02.01.2009.
Page No.# 8/14 The School Managing Committee, vide resolution No. 2 dated 20.01.2011 degraded Shoriful Islam from Science Teacher to Additional Teacher which is after 01.01.2011.
As per statement of the DEEO, Dhubri, Korman Ali Sheikh (petitioner of WP(C) 5366/2014) and Sri Moynul Hoque (petitioner of WP(C) 5291/2014) in collusion with the Headmaster of Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa did not allow Sri Shoriful Islam to put signature in the Daily Attendance Register of the school for which the School Managing Committee in its meeting dated 12.07.2013 presided over by Mohammad Ali, President of the School Managing Committee, decided to open a new proceeding book and Attendance Register and the said Attendance Register reflected that Sri Shoriful Islam has been attending school regularly.
As per the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012, there should be a Science Graduate Teacher in an Upper Primary School and as such the service of Sri Shoriful Islam may be considered for provincialisation. Again, the service of Sri Korman Ali Sheikh may also be considered for provincialisation as Assistant Teacher as he has been working as Assistant Teacher since 11.07.1991. In respect of Sri Moynul Hoque, it may be said that there is no provision for provincialisation of services of Additional Teacher within the purview of the above mentioned prevalent Act.
Views: From the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove, the service of petitioner Moynul Hoque as Additional Teacher cannot be considered for provincialisatin as per the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012, and the service of the petitioner Sri Korman Ali Sheikh as Assistant Teacher and respondent No. 7 Sri Shoriful Islam as Science Teacher may be considered for provincialisation. The DEEO, Dhubri, is hereby requested to release all consequential benefit to Sri Korman Ali Sheikh as Assistant Teacher and Sri Shoriful Islam as Science Teacher of Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa as per Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012.
This is issued in compliance with the Hon'ble High Court order dated 18.08.2015 in WP(C) No. 5366/2014 and WP(C) No. 5291/2014.
Page No.# 9/14 Sd/- S. K. Bhuyan Director, Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19"
5. A perusal of the aforesaid impugned order would clearly indicate that all the three teachers are claiming to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher/Science Teacher. Apparently, there are only two posts available in the school for provincialisation. In the present cases, Moynul Hoque claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher whereas Korman Ali Sheikh claims to have been appointed as a Science Teacher. On the other hand, Shoriful Islam is also claiming to have been appointed as a Science Graduate Teacher, though on a later date than the aforesaid two persons. Shoriful Islam further contends that, in fact, Moynul Hoque was never appointed as an Assistant Teacher, but was appointed as an Additional Teacher.
6. Be that as it may, as mentioned above, these are aspects which were duly considered by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, and this Court is not again referring to the respective claims made by the three petitioners in this order.
7. However, it is to be noted that amongst two posts available in the said school for provincialisation, one post is of Assistant Teacher and the other is of Science Teacher. Thus, the claims of these three petitioners, either as Science Teacher or Assistant Teacher, have to be examined keeping in mind the availability of posts. It is in that context it becomes relevant as to when the respective claimants were appointed in the school and in which capacity. In other words, if any of the claimants had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher as per rules, such claimant would obviously have the benefit of provincialisation as an Assistant Teacher. Similarly, if any of the claimants was appointed as a Science Teacher as per rules, obviously he will have the benefit of provincialisation against such post. The only exercise that requires to be undertaken is to examine as to which of the aforesaid three teachers was appointed as an Assistant Teacher or Science Teacher as per rules. It is in that background that the issues raised in these writ petitions have to be considered.
8. The claims and counter-claims, as mentioned above, were the subject-matter in earlier two writ petitions, namely, WP(C) 5291/2014 and WP(C) 5366/2014 and this Court, after consideration of the rival contentions, directed the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Page No.# 10/14 to consider the claims of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available and to pass a speaking order, which was done by the Director of Elementary Education by issuing a speaking order dated 01.02.2016, which is the subject-matter of challenge in WP(C) 840/2016 and WP(C) 852/2016. In fact, soon after passing of the said speaking order dated 01.02.2016, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, issued an order dated 22.09.2016 provincialising the service of Shoriful Islam as a Science Teacher in the aforesaid school. The aforesaid order dated 22.09.2016 is the subject-matter of challenge in WP(C) 6530/2016.
9. In WP(C) 6530/2016, the claim between Korman Ali and Shoriful Islam is in respect of the post of Science Teacher. It is contended on behalf of Korman Ali that he is entitled to the aforesaid post of Science Teacher as he had been appointed as a Science Teacher in the year 1999, i.e., almost 18 years earlier than Shoriful Islam. However, the school authorities as well as the State authorities have provincialised the service of Shoriful Islam by ignoring this fact.
10. It has been, however, submitted on behalf of Shoriful Islam that the factual position as submitted on behalf of Korman Ali is not correct since Korman Ali was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher and, in fact, his appointment was approved by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) only in the year 1995, which was never put to challenge by him. Therefore, the fact remains that though Korman Ali was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1991 by the School Managing Committee, his appointment was approved by the District authorities only in the year 1995.
11. On the other hand, it is also the case of Korman Ali that there are documents to show that he was actually appointed by the School Managing Committee as a Science Teacher and he joined as a Science Teacher on 20.07.1991 [Annexure-1 of WP(C) 852/2016] and also his appointment as a Science Teacher was approved by the DEEO, Dhubri, vide order dated 21.02.1995 [Annexure-2 of WP(C) 852/2016].
12. Thus, what transpires from the above is that there are two sets of appointment orders and approval orders, one appointing Korman Ali as Science Teacher and another appointing Shoriful Islam as Science Teacher in the aforesaid school. Obviously, there cannot be two sets of appointment orders and approval orders appointing two persons against one post of Science Teacher but, apparently, this has occurred in the present cases. However, it seems Page No.# 11/14 that this aspect was considered by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, as reflected in the impugned order dated 01.02.2016, wherein he made certain observations, which read as under:
".............Another appointment letter has been shown to be issued by the School Managing Committee on 20.07.1991 appointing Sri Korman Ali Sheikh as Science Teacher vide the same Resolution of the School Managing Committee as mentioned above, which seems to be doubtful as the signature of Secretary, School Managing Committee appears different form that seen in the earlier appointment letter dated 01.07.1991. Again, the second joining report shows the teacher joining on 11.07.1991 which is prior to the issue of the appointment letter."
"...........And the service of the petitioner Sri Korman Ali Sheikh as Asstt. Teacher and respondent No. 7 Sri Shoriful Islam as Science Teacher may be considered for provincialisation. The DEEO, Dhubri is hereby requested to release all consequential benefit to Sri Korman Ali Sheikh as Asstt. Teacher and Sri Shoriful Islam as Science Teacher of Gurguripara Islamia M.E. Madrassa as per Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012."
13. From the above, it is evident that the Director of Elementary Education did not lend credence to the appointment order and approval order relied on by Korman Ali as regards his appointment as a Science Teacher in the said school and, instead, proceeded to accept the documents produced by Shoriful Islam. The impugned order also reflects that the Director of Elementary Education made certain decisions on the basis of the documents produced by both Korman Ali and Shoriful Islam as well as by the School authorities. Thus, these cases come in the realm of determination of factual dispute for which a roving enquiry is required to be undertaken entailing a detailed examination of various records and this Court, being a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is reluctant to go into such factual dispute as the entire records are not available before this Court. Rather, it would be more appropriate for the respondent authorities to undertake such an exercise for the purpose of resolving the issues raised in these writ petitions to the satisfaction of the parties. Since, admittedly, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, is a higher authority than the Director of Elementary Education, Page No.# 12/14 Assam, this Court is of the view that the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, may be entrusted with the task of resolving the claims and counter-claims made by the aforesaid three teachers in respect of their appointment as well as provincialisation of their services.
14. Accordingly, this Court, without making any observation on the claims and counter- claims of the respective parties as regards the genuineness of their appointment orders issued by the School Managing Committee as well as the approval orders issued by the State authority, directs the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, to re-examine the respective claims of the aforesaid three teachers and pass appropriate order after hearing all the parties taking into consideration all parameters, including seniority, as provided under the rules, as regards their entitlement to the post claimed by them and also their claim for provincialisation.
15. This takes care of the grievance of the petitioners so far as WP(C) 840/2016 and WP(C) 852/2016 are concerned.
16. Coming to the other writ petition, namely, WP(C) 6530/2016, learned counsel for the petitioner has vigorously argued that the impugned order dated 22.09.2016, whereby the service of Shoriful Islam was provincialised, is liable to be interfered with. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition that the aforesaid order could not have been given effect to and the benefit of provincialisation could not have been extended to Shoriful Islam as there were court cases pending involving appointment of teachers as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the impugned order dated 22.09.2016. By relying on paragraph 4 of the order dated 22.09.2016, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of DISE Code of the school in question up-to the year 2009-2010, no provincialisation order could have been issued in respect of the school in question. Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid letter dated 22.09.2016 reads as follows:
"4. No provincialisation order will be effected in case of schools having any court cases in connection with appointment of teachers, dispute on land, absence of DISE Code up-to 2009-2010 and others inconformity with the provision of The Assam venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Servies) Act, 2011, Amendment Page No.# 13/14 2012."
17. The order dated 22.09.2016 impugned in WP(C) 6530/2016 clearly mentions that provincialisatin will not be given effect to in case any court cases involving a school is pending and also in absence of DISE Code up-to the year 2009-2010. However, it may be noted that the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2016 was issued as a consequential action to the decision taken by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide the order dated 01.02.2016, which has been put to challenge in the other two writ petitions referred to above. Since the aforementioned two writ petitions were pending when the order dated 22.09.2016 was passed, the said order could not have been implemented. However, since the aforesaid two writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage and in the manner as mentioned above, the order dated 22.09.2016 can now be implemented, however, only after a decision is arrived at by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, as directed hereinabove in WP(C) 840/2016 and WP(C) 852/2016.
18. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no provincialisation could have been given effect to in absence of DISE Code of the school up-to 2009-2010, this Court is of the opinion that this is a matter which can be ascertained by the authorities concerned after making necessary verification in this regard.
19. Accordingly, this Court holds that the validity of the order dated 22.09.2016 will depend on the decision that will be arrived at by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, on undertaking the exercise as directed hereinabove in WP(C) 840/2016 and WP(C) 852/2016. After undertaking such exercise as directed by this Court, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, will issue a speaking order as regards the claims and counter-claims made by the above-named three teachers and also with regard to the validity of the order dated 01.02.2016. In other words, the validity and implementation of the orders dated 01.02.2016 and dated 22.09.2016, impugned in these writ petitions will depend on the fresh order that will be passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, after undertaking the exercise as directed above by giving due opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties, including the three petitioners. The date, time and venue of the hearing will be intimated to the petitioners well Page No.# 14/14 in advance.
20. Since the matters are pending since the year 2016, it is expected that the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, will endeavour to undertake and complete the entire exercise, as directed hereinabove, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
21. For expediting the process, the petitioners may furnish a certified copy of this order to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department. The petitioners are also at liberty to submit individual representation before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, along with documents in support of their respective cases, if they so desire.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant