BIJUMONI SAHARIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. B.P. Kataki, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE challenge in the present writ application is against an order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by the Respondent No. 5 adjusting the 4th respondent against the vacancy caused by the transfer of one Chandi Ram Sarma, Hindi Teacher from the Maroi M.E. Madrassa, Mangaldoi to Sevak M.E. School, Biaspara. The aforesaid challenge has been made in the following facts and circumstances :

(3.) THE arguments advanced as well as the facts on which the same have been made are disputed. The respondents in the affidavit filed as well as in the oral arguments made contend that the selection made was for the purpose of Honorary Teacher and it was made in the year 1999. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Honorary Teacher in the year 1999. Thereafter, following the policy for regularisation of Honorary Teachers as circulated by Office Memorandum dated 21.6.2000, the case of the respondent No. 4 was considered and she was regularised by way of adjustment against the vacancy caused by the transfer in question. Learned State counsel, Mr. Talukdar, has been asked repeatedly by the Court to show the manner in which the case of the respondent No. 4 was taken up for regularisation in accordance with the Government policy in force; whether the case of the said respondent was considered by the Task Force duly constituted for the said purpose and whether the respondent No. 4's case was considered along with other eligible candidates. The answers received are largely in the negative. To save the situation, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 stepped in and has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents enclosed to the affidavit of the said respondent and marked as Annexures -21, 22 and 23. Annexure -23 is the order of appointment dated 7.12.2000, by a adjustment, which is stated to be pursuant to the Government order dated 28.11.2000 and the Director of Elementary Education's letter dated 6.12.2000, the Government order dated 21.11.2000 and the Director's letter dated 6.10.2000 which are marked as Annexures -21 and 22 to the respondent's affidavit does not indicate that the manner and procedure contemplated by the Government notification dated 21.6.2000 was followed in the instant case. The said communications merely reveal the desire, if not the anxiety of the two officers for suitable accommodation of the respondent No. 4. In such a situation, this Court is left with no other option but to conclude that the regularisation of the respondent No. 4 by way of adjustment against the transfer vacancy in the Maroi M.E. Madrassa, Mangaldoi was not made in accordance with the Government policy in force. The order of regularisation dated 24th April, 2000 as well the 7th December, 2000 are, therefore, interfered with by this Court. The net result of the above is that the respondent No. 4 would continue to remain as a Honorary Teacher and she would be entitled to consideration for regularisation in accordance with the prevailing policy in force. This Court has been told that a new policy for such regularisation has been promulgated by the State Government in the month of January 2003. In that case the respondent No. 4 should be considered in accordance with such Government policy as and when her turn comes. The post of the regular Hindi Teacher which will now fall vacant, if is required to be filled up by direct appointment, will be so done only after consideration of the cases of the petitioners and other such persons eligible who may apply/have applied for the said post.