KANDARPA KUMAR KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. Konwar, learned counsel for petitioners. Also 1. heard Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for Education Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel for Finance Department appearing for respondent No.3.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7, claiming to be teachers of different subjects and petitioner No.8 as office Assistant, in the extended/upgraded Higher Secondary sections of Barajol Higher Secondary School, Nalbari. Initially Barajol High School was a provincialised one. Subsequently on 28.02.2001, vide Annexure -3 Government accorded up -gradation of the said school into Higher Secondary School and thereupon two new classes, namely, Class ­ XI & XII in arts stream came into being. It appears that on various dates, namely, 29.03.2001, (Annexure -5), 31.05.2001 (Annexure -6), 01.03.2002 ( Annexure -7) and 19.03.2002 ( Annexure - 8) proposals were made to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, for creation of posts of subject teachers in the newly upgraded Higher Secondary Level Schools. By the said letters apart from the school of the petitioners, 9 other schools were also covered and the request was made to the Government for taking appropriate steps. On 20.04.2001 vide Annexure -4, the Director of Secondary Education mentioned that there was no provision in the current years plan budget for creation of new posts and as such without creation of the posts by the Government, salary cannot be paid to the teachers in the upgraded section of schools for 2 classes. Accordingly, in the said letter a budget was also proposed for the purpose of creation of posts of Principal, Vice -principal, 7 subject teachers and 1 office assistant only in the petitioners' school.

(3.) NEITHER the learned counsel for petitioners nor the learned Standing Counsel could furnish any information as to whether subsequently the proposal was taken to its logical consequence. The petitioners contend that no action has been taken from Education Department. It is settled law that Writ Court cannot give any direction to the executive for creation of posts. It is within the province of the executive to create any cadre of posts, strength of said cadre depending upon the necessity, as may be felt by various authorities under the executive. What is reflected from the affidavit submitted by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is that the matter is still going on between the Finance Department as well as Education Department. Once the Higher Secondary Sections have been opened and students have been admitted to the course, the concerned authority should take decision as to whether there should be creation of posts. The ultimate decision is to be taken by the Government, in consultation with the Finance Department. It is the allegation of the petitioners that the matter has not been unattended since 2001. It is in the fitness of case that the executive takes the matter to its logical end at an early date as to whether the posts should be created or not.