JIABUR RAHMAN Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Islam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education appears for the respondents 1 to 5. The respondent No. 6 is represented by Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, SSA. Although affidavit is filed on his behalf, the respondent No. 7 is not represented. The petitioner and the respondent No. 7 Md. Mainul Islam are claiming legitimacy for their respective schools, which shares a common name i.e. No. 2 Lecharibori Primary School in Mayong Block of Morigaon District. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.6.2012 (Annexure -2) whereby the DEE, Assam has declared that the school headed by the respondent No. 7 Md. Mainul Islam is the "original" school.

(2.) 1. The petitioner contends that the said finding of the DEE, Assam is perverse and is inconsistent with the report dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure -12) of the B.E.E.O., Mayong; the report dated 7.9.2011 (Annexure -9) of the D.I. of Schools, Morigaon and the report dated 19.9.2011 (Annexure -8) of the DEEO, Morigaon. The BEEO, Morigaon inspected both the schools on 7.5.2011 and declared that the No. 2 Lecharibori Primary School headed by the petitioner Jiabur Rahman is the "old school" with proper school building and furniture whereas the school with the same name headed by the respondent No. 7 Md. Mainul is a temporary slipshod structure constructed recently. Moreover, the petitioner's school is located in the 1 Bigha land under Dag No. 313 of Patta No. 4 of Lecharibori village of Potoria Mouza and the schools name is mutated against this land in the Revenue records.

(3.) MR . U.K. Goswami, Standing Counsel, Education however submits that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 and since they failed to produce any land documents, an adverse inference was drawn against the petitioner's school. But strangely in the counter affidavit filed by the DEE, Assam, it is averred that enquiry report(s) of the DEEO, Morigaon and the contemporaneous reports were taken into account before the impugned order was passed by the Director.