Gauhati High Court
Raman Sarmah vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 16 September, 2021
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
GAHC010115792021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3664/2021
RAMAN SARMAH
S/O- LT. HARI SARMAH, R/O- PEOLI PHUKAN PATH, SIVASAGAR,
P.O. NAMTIAL PATHAR, PIN- 785697
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY ITS COMM. AND SECY. EDUCATION DEPTT.
(SECONDARY), TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR-06
2:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
3:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
4:THE DY. DIRECTOR
SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
SIVASAGAR
DISTRICT CIRCLE
DIST.- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
6:MANJU CHETIA
ASSTT. TEACHER
SIVASAGAR GOVT. H.S AND M.P SCHOO
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA 16-09-2021 The matter is taken up through video conferencing. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
The petitioner before this Court is a Post Graduate Teacher teaching in Sibsagar Government H.S. & M.P. School, Sivasagar. He has questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 12(4) of the Assam Secondary Education (Government Schools) Service Rules, 20201. This provision makes a person in eligible for consideration for the post of Principal if he has less than one year of service left at the time of selection, though otherwise he may be eligible on all other counts. Moreover, in other words, it is the statutory period fixed under the statute with the residuary period of service which is under challenge and which is questioned as arbitrary, apart from being unreasonable classification being violative of Article 41 of the Constitution of India.
Counter affidavit and rejoinder have been exchanged.
We shall examine this matter, but considering that the Rules have already given powers of relaxation to the 1Rules which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India Government under Rule 312, we, as an interim measure, direct the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner under Rule 31 of the Rules for relaxation as far as the residuary period of service is concerned considering that the petitioner has been working as in-Charge Principal since 30.11.2017 and although the Rules had come into effect on 08.05.2020, identification of vacancies and annual selection for those vacant posts, as mandated by the said Rules, has not been even completed as of now.
We are fully conscious of the fact that the Government would have difficulty in completing the selection process considering the present COVID-19 pandemic, but we also cannot lose sight of the fact that this has caused hardship to the present petitioner as when the Rules were implemented as well as when the vacancies were determined, he had more than one year of service left and, therefore, before we examine as to the validity of the Rules, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Government to consider relaxation in case of the petitioner in accordance with law.
List again on1st November, 2021.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing assistant
231. Relaxation:-Where the Government is satisfied that operation of any of these rules leads to undue hardship in any particular case, it may, dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner;
Provided that the case of any person shall not be dealt with any manner less favourable to him than provided in these rules.