Gauhati High Court
Smti Sonalota Gogoi & Ors vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 8 September, 2015
Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)
WP(C) Nos. 4869, 4870 & 4468 of 2008
I. W P(C) No.4869/ 2008
1. Shri Iswar Upadhyay,
Assistant Teacher,
Aunibari No.409 L.P. Schoo.
2. Shri Khargeswari Baruah,
Assistant Teacher,
Aranibari Janajati L.P. School.
3. Sri Kamala (Devi) Chetry,
Assistant Teacher,
Kulabil Mornoi L.P. School.
......Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Education Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19.
3. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
4. The Deputy Inspector of Schools,
North Lakhimpur, Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
......Respondents.
For the Petitioners : Mr. D. Doley. ....Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, SC, Education.
Ms. S. Gogoi. ....Advocates.
II . W P(C) No.4870/ 2008
Shri Jayamai Baruah,
W/O Shri Dandeswar Chetia,
Vill-Na-Pamua, PO-Marmukh,
Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
......Petitioner.
Versus
WP(C) 4869, 4870, 4468/2008 Page 1 of 6
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Education Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19.
3. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
4. The Deputy Inspector of Schools,
North Lakhimpur, Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
......Respondents.
For the Petitioner : Mr. D. Doley. ....Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, SC, Education.
Ms. S. Gogoi. ....Advocates.
III . W P(C) No.4468/ 2008
1. Smt. Sonalota Gogoi,
Assistant Teacher, Kadam Lai Mekuri L.P. School,
Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
2. Smt. Tulumoni Dutta,
Assistant Teacher, Borpukhuri L.P. School,
Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
3. Miss Rousonara Begum,
Assistant Teacher, Kamalabaria L.P. School,
Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
4. Mr. Ratneswar Khandit,
Assistant Teacher, Dirgha L.P. School,
Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
(All are having common cause of action).
......Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the
Govt. of Assam, Education Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19.
3. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
4. The Deputy Inspector of Schools,
WP(C) 4869, 4870, 4468/2008 Page 2 of 6
North Lakhimpur, Dist.-Lakhimpur, Assam.
......Respondents.
For the Petitioners : Mr. D. Doley. ....Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, SC, Education.
Ms. S. Gogoi. ....Advocates.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 8 th Septem ber, 2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. D. Doley, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in the WP(C) Nos.4869/2008 and 4870/2008. Also heard Ms. S. Gogoi, the learned advocate appears for the petitioner in the WP(C) No.4468/2008. The standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education Mr. N.J. Khataniar appears for the respondents in all 3 cases.
2. The common challenge in these cases is to the order dated 06.09.2008 issued by the D.I. of Schools, North Lakhimpur, whereby the services of the appointed L.P. School teachers was ordered to be discontinued on the ground that they were appointed illegally and irregularly. The impugned order was issued by the D.I. of Schools in pursuant to the direction given on 14.08.2008 by the Director of Elementary Education (DEE), Assam.
3. The petitioners claim that they were lawfully appointed as Stipendiary Teachers in L.P. Schools within different Legislative Assembly segments of Lakhimpur district after due selection and accordingly they assail the legality of the termination order passed against them. The learned counsel refers to the select list prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board of North Lakhimpur to project that the names of some of the petitioners had appeared in that select list and therefore they contended that they were appointed through due process.
WP(C) 4869, 4870, 4468/2008 Page 3 of 64. The case material shows that the appointed teachers were paid salary only for few months after they were appointed on 30.07.1994, by the then D.I. of Schools, North Lakhimpur, T.N. Hazarika. Therefore the appointees had to approach the High Court for a direction on disbursal of their current and arrear salary. The WP(C) No.5221/1998 filed by Iswar Upadhyay and 16 others was disposed of on 10.03.1999, whereby this Court directed the DEE, Assam to verify whether the petitioners are entitled to their salary and if it is found justified, their salaries were ordered to be paid.
5. Since no salary was disbursed to the teachers, they filed the Contempt Case Nos.35/2000, 137/2001 and 287/2001, where it was projected by the departmental authority that the issue of non-payment of salary is being examined by the S. Manoharan Committee constituted by State Government and depending upon the nature of the finding of the Manoharan Committee, the salaries would be disbursed to the concerned petitioners. On the basis of such projection, the contempt cases were ordered to be closed by this Court on 03.02.2003.
6. Subsequently the WP(C) No.5836/2005 was filed by 60 teachers of different L.P. Schools in Lakhimpur district and this case was disposed of on 22.08.2005 by directing verification of the claim for salary made by the L.P. School teachers and if the appointments are found to be genuine, their salary was ordered to be disbursed, through the order dated 22.08.2005 in the WP(C) No.5836/2005.
7. The departmental lawyer Mr. N.J. Khataniar refers to the counter affidavit filed by the DEE in the WP(C) No.4869/2008 to project that the departmental stand in all 3 cases is substantially reflected in that counter affidavit of the Director. The DEE in his affidavit avers that the select list of 1993 relied upon by the petitioners was never approved by the DEE and therefore no right would accrue to anyone just because his name appears in that unapproved list, prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board, North Lakhimpur.
8. The govt. advocate submits that the then D.I. of Schools Mr. T.N. Hazarika made large scale illegal appointments against non-existent posts by falsely referring to sanctioning of posts, through the DEE's letter dated 04.02.1992, in the appointment order(s) issued on 30.07.1994. But in fact, the WP(C) 4869, 4870, 4468/2008 Page 4 of 6 so called letter dated 04.02.1992 of the DEE is a non-existent document and therefore he argues that appointments were illegally made without any sanctioned posts being available, to accommodate the appointees. Consequently because of want of budgetary provision, salaries of such illegally appointed teachers could not be disbursed, by the authorities.
9. From the counter affidavit of the Director, it can be gathered that the S. Manoharan Committee after verifying the process of appointment of teachers in different districts of Assam, made recommendation for regularizing 135 L.P. School teachers of North Lakhimpur sub-division as this group were appointed against sanctioned posts. But the cases of the petitioners were not similarly recommended by the Manoharan Committee, as they were appointed against non-existent posts.
10. Because of the above finding of the Manoharan Committee and since the appointments were illegally made against non-existent posts on the basis of an unapproved list, the entire claim of the appointees was verified in pursuant to the direction given by the Court in the WP(C) No.5836/2005 and the connected cases and that is how the DEE had ordered for discontinuance of the illegal appointees through his communication dated 14.08.2008 and acting on the direction of the DEE, service was ordered to be discontinued of the L.P. School teachers, by the D.I. of Schools, North Lakhimpur.
11. What is seen from the case material is that the so called list prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board was never approved by the competent authority. It may further be noted that the list (Annexure-A) relied upon by the petitioner in the WP(C) No.4870/2008 Jayamai Baruah is in fact not a select list but it merely contains the names of the first founder teachers of the provincialized schools in the concerned district. Therefore, in my view, no right of appointment can accrue on the basis of such unapproved select list or the founder teachers' list.
12. That apart, posts were never sanctioned by the Director on 04.02.1992 and therefore it is apparent that appointments were made without any authority by the then D.I. of Schools T.N. Hazarika, to non-existent posts. Hence it must be concluded that the petitioners herein were illegally appointed without selection and more importantly they were appointed against non-existent WP(C) 4869, 4870, 4468/2008 Page 5 of 6 posts. Despite the elaborate verification exercise undertaken by the S. Manoharan Committee, no redeeming feature was noticed in respect of the appointment given to these petitioners. Therefore I find no illegality in discontinuing the services of the illegal appointees. On such conclusion, the writ petitions are found devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No cost.
JUDGE Roy WP(C) 4869, 4870, 4468/2008 Page 6 of 6