DIPTI DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 being the Finance Department.

(2.) The petitioner participated in a selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher of L.P. School in the Lakhimpur Sub-Division as per the advertisement dtd. 28/12/1996. The said process resulted in a select list being prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.64 of the said list which was published in the year 2001. Pursuant to such selection, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher against the fixed pay of Rs.1800.00 per month against the valid sanction post in the Sonia Gandhi L.P. School, Lakhimpur as per the order dtd. 31/3/2001 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, North Lakhimpur. The petitioner having been appointed against the pay of Rs.1800.00 has to be understood that she was appointed as a stipendry teacher requiring to undergo the basic training course. Materials on record also lead to an inference that the petitioner was sent for the basic training course. While the petitioner was undergoing the basic training course another incumbent was apparently appointed and posted against the same post where the petitioner was working. This resulted in the petitioner not receiving salary and allowance from the year 2004. The select list pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed, on perusal of the material appears to be a select list dtd. 5/3/2001. Although the petitioner was receiving the salary and allowance but there is an order dtd. 30/5/2001 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam requiring termination of the appointments of all such teachers who were appointed during the second half of March, 2001. The order of 30/5/2001 makes it discernible that such termination was required to be made as because the appointments itself were found to be unacceptable by the authorities, inasmuch as, there was a ban of appointment due to the election process at that relevant point of time.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstance, there is also an order dtd. 5/2/2009 of the Deputy Inspector of School, North Lakhimpur, whereby the petitioner was disallowed to continue her service inasmuch as, her appointment itself was illegal. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education Department had made an order dtd. 26/7/2005 by referring to certain writ petitions that the salary and allowance be released to 53 number of L.P. School teacher under the Deputy Inspector of School, Lakhimpur and in the accompanying list of 53 teachers, the name of the petitioner also appears at Serial No.53. As the salary was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner instituted WP(C) 1816/2006 which was given a final consideration by the order dtd. 26/4/2006 requiring the claim of the petitioner to be placed before the expert committee constituted as per the direction in Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar -vs- State of Assam and Ors. Upon the claim of the petitioner being placed before the aforesaid committee, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam had passed the order dtd. 7/1/2009. The effective conclusion of the order dtd. 7/1/2009 which is extracted below:-