Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appellants accordingly responded to the Employment Notice against the post of Assistant Teacher of Lower Primary School for the district of Darrang and appeared before the Selection Board on various dates between May to June, 1997 and upon being selected, they were appointed by the Deputy Inspector of School by appointment orders which were either dated 20.11.1999 or 4.12.1999 on temporary basis as stipendiary teacher on a monthly stipend of Rs.1800/-. It was also indicated that a regular pay scale as prescribed by the revision of pay 150, 151,152,155,156 of 2015 Rule, 1998 would be given on completion of 1 year Basic Training. Further, it was also indicated that the appointment was made against the post created originally vide Govt. Letter under Memo No. PMA-158/94 dated 18.1.1995.

43. The records also contain the enquiry report dated 17.6.2010 submitted by Smti Esther Kathar who was the Enquiry Officer and the OSD, Directorate of Elementary Education. According to her report, out of 302 appellants that were made on 20.11.1999 and 4.12.1999, the case of 17 candidates was different. In 150, 151,152,155,156 of 2015 fact these candidates were compassionate appointees and one amongst them was appointed as subject teacher in Nepali language. The records reveal that a communication was made by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department to the Accountant General, Assam vide letter No. PMA.158/94-A dated 18.1.1995 wherein 8153 posts were sanctioned for creation of posts of LP school teachers. Out of 8153 posts, 7565 posts were for General Area and the remaining 588 posts were for the Sixth Scheduled areas. The said communication also indicated that the necessary district-wise break-up for the posts would be issued subsequently.

44. It may be noticed at this stage that the appointment orders of all the appellants indicated that their appointments were made against the posts created originally vide Govt. Letter under Memo No. PMA. 158/ 94 dated 18.1.1995. But however, the records do not reveal any further district-wise break up for the 8153 posts. As stated earlier, the appointments of all the appellants were either made on 20.11.1999 and 4.12.1999.

45. In the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar (supra) as cited by Mr. D Das, the Ld. Senior counsel, although it was observed by the hon'ble Apex Court that the violation of principles of natural justice would warrant vitiation of an enquiry proceeding and where it is possible, an attempt should also be made to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates, the same will have not much of an effect in the case at hand. It can be seen that the appellants though not supplied with their copy of the Enquiry Report were all given Show Cause Notices prior to their termination and moreover, on perusal of their replies to the Show Cause Notice, it can be seen that they were unable to explain how they were selected by the Selection Board or their respective position in the select list. In fact according to them, they all had not seen any select list. The appellants having all been given Show Cause Notices, the case of Manager Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors.(supra) in fact would rather be more relevant to the controversy. The hon'ble Apex Court in this case held that party aggrieved would be required to show that prejudice was caused to him for not having been 150, 151,152,155,156 of 2015 supplied with the enquiry report and the appellants herein have not been able to demonstrate the same.