DULU DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition(WP (C) No.595 of 2008.) was filed by the appellant in the Gauhati High Court in the year 2008 praying for release of her salary from 12/3/2001 onwards. It was claimed that she was rendering service as an Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School and had not been paid any salary. The writ petition was dismissed,dtd. 8/9/2008. by the Single Judge. The order was upheld in an intra-court appeal(W.A. No.42 of 2009 dtd. 8/1/2010.) The said orders are impugned in the present appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case as enumerated in the order passed by the High Court are that, on 28/12/1996 an advertisement was issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, for filling up 7,500 posts of Assistant Teachers in M.E./M.V. Schools. The appellant claimed that she applied for the post and appeared for interview in July 1997. The selection list was not published by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, because the Government of Assam imposed a ban on the appointments. After the ban was lifted, the Selection Committee for Udalguri Sub-Division (General Area) in its meeting held on 12/3/2001, recommended the appellant's name with other candidates for appointment against vacancies in three Legislative Assembly Constituencies, namely, Dalgaon, Majbat and Udalguri. The appellant's name appeared against the vacancies in the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E./M.V./M.E.M. School vide order dtd. 12/3/2001 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Mangaldoi, Darrang, on a fixed salary of Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) per month under the Central Government's sponsored Scheme, namely, Operation Black Board Scheme. According to the appointment order, the term of the service was upto 31/3/2002. It is claimed by the appellant that she has been working in the said school since then, however, she has not been paid any salary. A direction was sought to the State to pay the salary to the appellant. However, the High Court did not find any merit in the submissions made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside as the appellant cannot be made to work without payment of salary, which amounts to Begar, not permissible in law.