JAHANGIR ALAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this group of cases are teachers of different L.P./M.E./M.V./High/Higher Secondary Schools of the state, who were appointed by the Managing Committees of the respective schools, which were already provincialised at the time of such appointment. The appointment of the petitioners was made mostly on honorary basis and in a few cases on payment of token remuneration. Regularisation of service/absorption against substantive vacancies is the essence of the relief/relief in cadi of the Writ petitions.

(2.) I have Or. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6125/03. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 5469/98 and 1923/99 : Mr. NN Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5551/ 01: Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5061/99, Mr. BP Katakey, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 7822/02; Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2052/02, Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6307/01. Mr. A R Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(c) No. 6712 03. Mr. R C Saikia learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3499/01, and Mr. A M Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6022/99. Mr SN Sarma, learned Senior Standing C oansel, Education Department, Government of Assam has been heard on behalf of the State Respondents in all the cases. The arguments advanced by the respective sides give rise to a common question of law, on the basis of which, it had become possible to hear the cases analogously and to dispose of the same by the present common judgment and order. The question of law arising in this bunch of cases may be formulated as herein below: Whether honorary teachers appointed by the Managing Committee of a provincialised school would have any legal or equitable right for regularisation of such appointment ?"

(3.) On the arguments advanced, two projections on behalf of the petitioners is discernible. Firstly, a legal right to regularisation has been claimed on behalf of each of the petitioners by virtue of the long years of service rendered by them. Some of the petitioners were appointed in the decade of 1980s and whereas the others were so appointed in the decade of 1990s. Long years of service rendered, by itself, it is claimed, vests in the petitioners a legal right to regularisation. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in all cases, the appoinments were made by the Managing Committees in the interest of the schools, there were need for additional teachers in view of the students strength and as the State was unable to sanction the requisite number of posts, the Managing Committees, in the interest of the students were competed to recruit the petitioner as honotary teachers. It is farther submitted that of the Managing Committees were, in some cases, approved by the judidictional District Level Officers and in almost all cases, recommendations were made by such District Level Officers for suitable adjustment of the petitioners by granting due sanction of additional posts. Learned counsels for the petitioners referred to the notes of inspection of the schools in question, which have been enclosed to the writ petitions to contend that the officers of the department were aware of the appointments and the services rendered by the petitioners and in all such inspection notes, the justification of the Managing Committees in making the appointments was accepted to be correct. The further argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that though unde.r the provisions of the relevant statute, i.e., Assam Elementary Education Provincialisation) Act, 1974 and the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Managing Committee of a provincialised school has not been empowered to appoint teachers, there were certain office memorandums and notifications issued by the competent authority of the State from time to time vesting such powers in the Managing Committees. The power to make appointment of honorary teachers, it is contended, is traceable to such office memorandums and notifications issued. In particular, reliance has been placed on 3 notifications dated 26.12.79, 18.1.96 and 6.11.2001 in support of the aforesaid submissions. Furthermore, the actions of the State in formulating schemes/ policies, from time to time, for regularisation of honorary teachers, as for instance the constitution of a task force by notification dated 21.6.2000, to examine the matter of such regularisation, has also been relied upon to contend, that at some point of time even the State had acknowledged a right of the honorary teachers to seek regularisation of their services.