JUBAIR AHMED BARBHUIYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 7.10.1997 by which the earlier order dated 3.9.1996 by which the services of the petitioner as Assistant teacher in the M.E. School in question was regularised has been cancelled. The petitioner was initially appointed by order dated 30.1.1996 as Assistant Teacher in the M.E. School in question. His such appointment was for a period of 3 months. By another order dated 16.5.1996 his service was extended for a further period of 3 months. By yet another order dated 7.8.1996, his such services were further extended for a period of 3 months. Eventually, his service was regularised by order dated 3.9.1996. Within about one year of such order of regularisation dated 3.9.1996 the impugned order dated 7.10.1997 was issued. Admittedly, the course of action was taken without putting the petitioner to any kind of notice and giving him opportunity of being heard.

(2.) I have heard Ms A. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned Standing counsel Education Department. Although the petitioner has made a statement in the writ petition contending that he had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to advertisement and he appeared in the selection conducted, nothing has been stated in the writ petition that when such advertisement was issued and the purported selection was held.

(3.) It is not understood as to why the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis for a period of 3 months, if he was a regularly selected candidate. It is also not known as to under what circumstances the order dated 3.9.1996 was issued regularising the services of the petitioner after he had rendered about 9 months service. Mr. YS Mannan, learned Standing counsel Education Department submits that such regularisation was made on the basis of purported Resolution No. 4 dated 29.1.1996 even prior to the order dated 30.1.1996 by which the petitioner was appointed. According to him, such a situation and the manner and method, in which the services of the petitioner was regularised is improper. He submits that on such fact situation, the impugned order dated 9.10.1997 was issued cancelling the order of regularisation dated 3.9.1996.