NIJARA DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dtd. 28/6/2016 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam whereby it was held that the Petitioner joined his service on 10/4/2010 along with Respondent No.6 and the Respondent No. 6's date of birth being 1/3/1970 and the Petitioner's date of birth being 1/3/1974 and as such the Respondent No.6 was senior to the Petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts of the instant case is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Computer Teacher in a school namely P.B. Dhirudutta Higher Secondary School on 4/4/2004 under a Government Scheme. As per the Petitioner, she resigned from her services on 1/4/2010 and thereafter she was appointed by a letter dtd. 5/4/2010 as a Subject Teacher in Assamese. It is the case of the Petitioner that she joined to the post of Subject Teacher Assamese on 6/4/2010 though she was serving in the School with effect from 2/4/2010. The Petitioner contends in her writ petition that the Principal of the School had asked her to submit one more joining letter on 10/4/2010 with the assurance that submitting the said joining letter on 10/4/2010 would not cause any problem to the Petitioner. The Petitioner accordingly submitted another joining letter on 10/4/2010. But later on, the Petitioner came to learn that the Respondent No.6 was considered senior to the Petitioner as she had joined on 10/4/2010 on the basis of her date of birth. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner initially filed the writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.3231/2013. This Court vide an order dtd. 13/6/2013 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Director of Elementary Education Assam to determine the inter se seniority of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.6 (Respondent No.5 in the said proceedings) by affording an opportunity to both the contenders. It was further mentioned that upon examination of the relevant documents including the School Attendance Register, a decision should be given on merits within a period of 8 weeks after receipt of the intimation from the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, on 28/6/2016, the order impugned in the instant proceedings was passed whereby holding that the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.6 joined on 10/4/2010 and as the date of birth of Respondent No.6 was on 1/3/1970 and the Petitioner's date of birth was on 1/3/1974, the Respondent No.6 was senior to that of the Petitioner.

(3.) The Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have not filed their Affidavit-in-Opposition. However, the Respondent No.6 had filed her Affidavit-in-Opposition. In the said Affidavit-in-Opposition, it has been mentioned that she alongwith the Petitioner were appointed on 5/4/2010. On 10/4/2010, the Respondent No.6 joined the school as the Subject Teacher in Assamese. The Petitioner had also joined on the same date as a Subject Teacher in Assamese in the said school. It is further mentioned that the dispute arose as regards the Inter se seniority between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.6 after the submission of the list of teachers for provincialization of their services by the Principal of concerned school on 5/10/2012 whereby the name of the Petitioner was shown below the name of the Respondent No.6 on the basis of materials available on record. The Respondent No.6 filed an RTI Application under the Right to Information Act, before the Central Public Information Officer/State Public Information Officer, Office of the Inspector of School and DC, Nalbari on 9/3/2015 wherein various documents were sought for. The said documents were (i) A photocopy of the individual form submitted by the Petitioner for provincialization, (ii) Joining letter of the Petitioner, (iii) Photocopy of the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee, Nalbari containing the list of employees submitted/forwarded to the DSC for provincialization of post and (iv) Photocopy of the format submitted by the Principal for provincialization of the posts. The said documents were furnished to the petitioner by the Principal and Secretary of P.B. Dhirudutta Higher Secondary School on 24/3/2015. Amongst the various documents so furnished, one of such document was the "Individual information to be furnished by each employee". The said document was a document furnished by the Petitioner on 9/2/2011 wherein the Petitioner had against the column No.7 "Date of joining in the school/institution" mentioned the date of joining to be 10/4/2010. Against the column No.9 of the said document which stipulated the "Period of service in any other Educational institution prior to joining in the present institution and name and address of such institution indicating date of receiving permission/recognition etc. from Govt.", the information so furnished was "In this school as Computer Teacher from 8/4/2004 to 9/4/2010". Further to that a certificate was also furnished and issued by the Principal of P.B. Dhirudutta Higher Secondary School wherein it was certified that the Petitioner rendered her services as Computer Teacher from 8/4/2004 to 9/4/2010 in the School. On the basis of the said documents enclosed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition, it was the stand of the Respondent No.6 that the Petitioner cannot be said to have joined prior to 10/4/2010 in as much as on the basis of the certificate issued by the Principal dtd. 10/12/2011, it was clearly shown that the Petitioner was working as a Computer Teacher from 8/4/2004 to 9/4/2010. Further to that in the document "Individual information to be furnished by each employee", the Petitioner have entered with her signature thereon that she joined the institution on 10/4/2010. Apart from that, the Petitioner had also admitted in that document that she was a Computer Teacher of the said School from 8/4/2004 to 9/4/2010. As regards the Attendance Register which have been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it has been mentioned that the same on the face of it seems manipulated taking into consideration that while it has been shown that the Petitioner has been putting her signature in the Attendance Register from 2/4/2010 and there were no other Teachers who has put their signatures till 9/4/2010. It was also contended that when the Petitioner has been appointed on 5/4/2010, it is totally inconceivable how the Petitioner would have put her signature on 2/4/2010 unless and ofcourse the Petitioner put her signature as a Computer Teacher till 9/4/2010.