HARI CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be determined in this miscellaneous application is whether the interim order dated 23.5.2013 passed by this Court in the connected writ petition is liable to be vacated or not?

(2.) The applicant is the respondent No. 9 in the connected writ petition filed by the opposite party/writ petitioner ("petitioner" for short) herein. In the writ petition, the petitioner states that the school under the name of Bholabari Bagicha L.P. School was established in the year 1985 with two teachers i.e. one Headmaster and one Assistant Teacher. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of the school on 23.5.1985 and claims to be the founder teacher. He has since 1985 been regularly and continuously teaching the students of Bholabari Bagicha L.P. School as the Assistant Teacher. According to the petitioner, the Headmaster of the School, who is also the Secretary of the Managing Committee (respondent 6), keeps the attendance register and other documents of the school under his control and keeps them in his house instead of the school: the teacher is allowed to sign the attendance register as and when he likes. The petitioner was paid Rs.4,000/ - per month, and had received Rs.48,000/ - in the year 2009 and another Rs.48,000/ - in the year 2011 as Financial Assistance from the Government.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6, with a view to deprive the petitioner of the financial assistance for the year 2011 -12, which was already released by the Government of Assam, showed him absent from school despite the repeated requests made by him to allow him sign the attendance register as he has been regularly attending the school. This has been done by him with the intention of giving the financial assistance to the respondent No. 9; the latter has illegally received the financial assistance. The complaints made by him to this effect to various authorities including the District Elementary Education Officer, Udalguri, did not yield any result. On the contrary, the respondent No. 6 issued the letter dated 20.9.2012 terminating the service of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in the DISE Code allotted to the school also, his name was initially shown as the Assistant Teacher, but was subsequently struck off and substituted by the name of the respondent No. 9, who was appointed as the additional Assistant Teacher only on 10.4.1996. Aggrieved by this, the connected writ petition was filed by him for directing the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher of the school upon provincialization of the school as he is the only Assistant Teacher in the School and has been rendering service in that capacity since 1985 without any break in service.