Gauhati High Court
Md. Ibrahim Ali vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 20 May, 2022
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010093892022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3261/2022
MD. IBRAHIM ALI
S/O- MD. FAZAR ALI
R/O- VILLAGE RAJAPARA PART-I
P.O- BAGRIBARI
DIST- KOKRAJHAR (BTAD), ASSAM
PIN-783349
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DEPT. OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR
OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781019
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301
4:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION)
DHUBRI
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301
Page No.# 2/5
5:THE SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)
BILASIPARA (DEVELOPMENT BRANCH)
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783348
6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
DHUBRI DISTRICT CIRCLE
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301
7:KARBAN ALI SK.
ASSTT TEACHER (UNDER SUSPENSION)
CHARPARA PRE- SENIOR MADRASSA
VILLAGE- BOALKAMURI PART -III
P.O- BARKANDA
P.S- BILASIPARA
DISTRICT -DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-78334
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 20-05-2022 Heard Mr. G U Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N M Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 6 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam, Mr. G Bokolial, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 respectively, being the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Educatiom), Dhubri and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bilasipara Page No.# 3/5 (Development Branch), Dhubri.
2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not required to be issued on the respondent no. 7.
3. The petitioner claims to be the Head Mudaris of the Charpara Pre-Senior Madrassa in the Dhubri district who is aggrieved to the extent that the respondent no. 7 Karban Ali Sk. who is an Assistant Teacher of the said Madrassa had attempted to kill him on a quarrel regarding formation of School Management Committee of the said Madrassa. Statements are made that subsequently, some kind of comprises were arrived at. Later on, on 24.01.202, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the respondent no. 6 raising certain allegations against the respondent no. 7 Karban Ali Sk. regarding demand of money and sanction of rice for midday meal for the students.
4. The entire dispute appears to a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 in a situation where the petitioner is the Head Mudaris and the respondent no. 7 is an Assistant Teacher in the said Madrassa. It is stated that the petitioner had also filed an FIR dated 28.08.2021 before the In-Charge of Nayahati Police Outpost against the respondent no. 7.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is instituted with the following prayers:
"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 respondent authorities to show cause as to why:
I) a Writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondent Authorities to provide adequate security arrangement to the petitioner so that he can attend in the Madrassa to perform his duty without any fear of unwanted situation, which may cause by the leadership of Kaban Ali Sheikh, Assistant Teacher of the said Madrassa or direct the Respondent Authorities to transfer or attach the petitioner to any other institution so that he can render Page No.# 4/5 his service as a Teacher;
II) a Writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent Authorities to dispose of the representation dated 19.04.2022 filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 3 whereby petitioner prayed for transfer/ engage in Tipkaichar Pre-Senior Madrassa under Bilasipara Education Block, Dhubri on acute security ground;
III) a Writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondent Nos. 2 &
6 not to make any attempt to place the petitioner under suspension on any other grounds and/or cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the records be pleased to make the Rule absolute by granting complete and adequate relief to the petitioners and/or pass such order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
- AND-
Pending disposal of the case, Your Lordships would be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent No. 2 & 6 not to make any attempt to place the petitioner under suspension on any other grounds and/or pass any other further appropriate order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. "
6. The first prayer is that the petitioner be provided with adequate security so that he can attend his duties in the Madrassa. The Writ Court is not an authority to provide security to the citizens and an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be made only if there is a violation of law by any of the authorities and as a result thereof, the legal right of the litigant is violated. From such point of view, the said prayer in the present form cannot be considered in this writ petition. The petitioner may approach appropriate authority under the law for the purpose.
7. The second prayer is to dispose of the representation dated 19.04.2022 filed before the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. After perusal of the Annexures to the writ petition, we do not find any representation being made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhbri. From such Page No.# 5/5 point of view also, we do not find any requirement to issue a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri.
8. The third prayer is for the Writ Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to place the petitioner under suspension on any ground. A remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only on a violation of the fundamental right or legal right of a litigant and no such remedy is available for avoiding a person from being suspended on an apprehension that on a future date, he may be suspended by the authorities. From such point of view also, no consideration is required.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed.
11. However, dismissal of this writ petition, shall not debar the writ petitioner to approach any appropriate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner, if otherwise available under the law including the grievance asking for security as well as for the respondents authorities to consider any representation that the petitioner may have submitted.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant