ABU SALEH SHARIF UDDIN Vs. HANIF UDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, representing respondent nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6, Mrs. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government, representing respondent no. 4 and Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for respondent no. 9. None appears on call for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 although notice is deemed to be duly served.

(2.) The connected interlocutory application has been filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India by the respondent no. 9 in the writ petition for vacating the interim order dtd. 27/9/2021. In the said interlocutory application, (i) the petitioner has been arrayed as opposite party no. 1, (ii) the Elementary Education Department and its authorities are arrayed as opposite party nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 7, (iii) the respondent no. 4 has been arrayed as opposite party no. 5 and the School Managing Committee has been arrayed as opposite party no. 8, and (iv) the Headmaster of the Kurshakati M.E. Madrassa has been arrayed as opposite party no. 9. In this order, for the sake of clarity, the parties have been referred to as per their position/ status in the writ petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to appointment order dtd. 10/11/2006, the petitioner joined as 2nd Assistant Teacher of Kurshakati M.E. Madrassa on 14/11/2006, which is under administrative control of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur, in Goalpara District (hereinafter referred to as 'BEEO' for short). The said Madrassa was allotted District Information System for Education (DISE for short) Code in the year 2006. The name of the petitioner was entered in DISE data with effect from the academic year 2008-09 as 2nd Assistant Teacher of the said M.E. Madrassa. It is claimed that on resignation of the previous Headmaster, the then Managing Committee of the said Kurshakati M.E. Madrassa appointed the respondent no. 9 as the Headmaster on 9/8/2009 and accordingly, he joined as Headmaster on 11/8/2009 and that his name was entered in the DISE data for academic year 2011-12. Accordingly, it is claimed that the respondent no. 9 was junior to the petitioner. It is also projected that the said Madrassa received Government grant in the year 2011 for the teaching and non-teaching staff. It is claimed that a meeting of the District Scrutiny Committee, Goalpara (DSC for short) was held on 9/6/2018 to consider and recommend provincialisation of Teaching and non-Teaching staff in venture educational institutions. The petitioner alleges that the said DSC had illegally recommended the name of the respondent no. 9 for provincialisation of his service, showing him to have been appointed on 1/6/2005. Thus, the aggrieved petitioner had submitted his representation dtd. 10/8/2020 before the DSC, Goalpara for excluding the name of the respondent no. 9 and inclusion of his name for provincialisation of his service. An enquiry was conducted and vide letter dtd. 16/10/2020, the enquiry report was submitted before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, inter alia, recommending that the matter be placed before DSC for re-verification and necessary action, but as nothing has happened, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the notification dtd. 4/2/2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent no.3) in so far it relates to provincialisation of service of the respondent no. 9 at serial no. 269 and for directing the respondent authorities for provincialising the service of the petitioner as teacher/ tutor of Upper Primary School under the provisions of Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of the Educational Institutions) Act, 2017.