AJIT KR GOSWMAI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions involving more or less the same set of facts, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2011 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by which their services as Subject Teacher of Zoology have been cancelled/terminated with immediate effect. Such a course of action is said to be in compliance with the judgment and order dated 06.08.2010 passed in PIL No. 14/2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3178/2008, Smt. Julekha Wahida Ahmed v. State of Assam and Ors. Prior to issuance of the impugned orders dated 07.06.2011 which is identically worded and in fact can be said to be cyclostyled one, were preceded by show cause notices dated 10.05.2011 which are also identically worded. For a ready reference one of the show cause notices dated 10.05.2011 is reproduced below :

(2.) In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioners submitted their replies disputing the contentions raised in the same. It was contended that contrary to the allegation made in the show cause notice that they were appointed pursuant to the selection made in October, 1995 by the particular Selection Board for 20 posts of Subject Teacher in Zoology advertised in June, 1992, the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement of 1989 and thus, their cases did not come within the purview of the task undertaken by the State Govt. in the Education Department to find out the illegality/irregularity in respect of 1995 selection.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam while passing the impugned orders dated 07.06.2011 was guided by the directives of the State Govt. to terminate the services of the petitioners and thus there was no independent application of mind. It has also been contended that the impugned orders have been passed by the said Director without due consultation of the judgment passed in the PIL. In this connection, the petitioner involved in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011 has referred to one of the orders passed in the said PIL proceeding which is dated 08.06.2009. Responding to the stand of the petitioner in the said proceeding that he was appointed in 1989 and his service was regularised in 1991, the Division Bench clearly recorded the finding that since the PIL proceeding was concerned with the recruitment process of 1995, the name of the petitioner was unnecessarily dragged in the writ petition and that the writ petitioner involved in the PIL cannot have any grievance against the said respondent No. 18, i.e. the present petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3101/2011.