ESRAFIL ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions, being inter-connected, were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. The reliefs claimed in WP(C) No. 4632/2006 are as follows: (a) for quashing the order dated 5.8.2006 issued by the respondent No. 2 approving the resolution of the Managing Committee of Fingua Anchalik Pre-Senior Madrass ("the Madrassa" for short) degrading the petitioner from the post of Head Mudaris to the post of Assistant Teacher of the Madrassa and of appointing the respondent No. 5 in his place, (b) to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Headmudaris of the Madrassa. In WP(C) No. 488 of 2013, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner are:--(i) to quash the resolution dated 1.3.2011 terminating him from the post of Headmudaris of Fingua Anchalik Pre-Senior Madrassa ("the Madrassa" for short) adopted by the Managing Committee of the Madrassa and the order dated 24.6.2011 issued by the Director, Madrassa Education, Assam (respondent 2) approving his termination order, (ii) to quash the order dated 17.9.2012 issued by the respondent No. 2 clarifying that the respondent No. 7 should be considered for provincialization in the post of Headmudaris, (iii) to quash the appointment of the respondent No. 7 as the Headmudaris of the Madrassa, (iv) to set aside the order dated 22.2.2001 recognizing the Madrassa, (v) to direct/command the respondents to reinstate him as the Headmudaris of the Madrassa, (vi) to restrain the respondent No. 2 and 3 from provincializing the service of the respondent No. 7 in the post of Headmudaris, (vii) to restrain the State-respondents from releasing more financial assistance/fixed monthly remuneration in favour of the Madrasa and (viii) directing the respondent No. 5 to complete the investigation of Sarthebari Police Station Case No. 17/06 (GR. No. 326/06 registered in connection with FIR No. 10.3.2006). Undoubtedly, the writ petition suffers from multifariousness/misjoinder of cause of action. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was initially appointed as Intermediate Assistant Teacher of the Madrassa on 16.2.1999 and joined the post on 17.2.1999. The building of the Madrassa was originally located at the land under Miadi Patta No. 34 with four bighas under Patta No. 49, Dag No. 88 with a total area as five bighas recorded in the name of the Madrassa. In the year 2001, the Headmudaris of the Madrassa resigned from the post due to personal difficulties whereupon the petitioner was appointed as the Headmudaris in her place. The appointment order was issued by the Secretary of the Madrassa on 30.6.2001 whereafter he joined the post. Immediately after his appointment, the respondent No. 3 (the District Scrutiny Committee, Barpeta) vide the office order dated 29.5.2003 reconstituted the Managing Committee of the Madrassa by including the name of the petitioner as the Headmudaris-cum-Member Secretary of the Madrassa.

(2.) It would appear that some complaints were lodged against the petitioner after his appointment which resulted in reconstituting the Managing Committee even before the expiry of its term. The petitioner promptly challenged the reconstitution by approaching this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7943/2004, and this Court by the order dated 20.12.2005 declined to interfere with the order as the term of the petitioner was about to be expired. In the meantime, some vested interest on 9.3.2006 went to the Madrassa and forcibly dismantled the Madrassa building from the original location and shifted the Madrassa to a different location. The FIR lodged by the petitioner on 10.3.2006 with the Officer-in-Charge of Sarthebari Police Station (respondent 5) was subsequently registered as Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 17/06 under Sections 120-B/147/148/149/427/379/506 IPC, but the investigation of the case is yet to be completed till now. The Managing Committee of the Madrassa in the meantime downgraded the petitioner to the post of Intermediate Assistant Teacher and appointed the respondent No. 7 in his place, which was also approved by the Deputy Director, Madrassa Education on 5.8.2006. This again drove the petitioner to file WP(C) No. 4632/2006 before this Court, which by the interim order dated 18.9.2006 stayed the impugned order, if the same had not be given effect to in the interregnum. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed on 8.9.2009 in default of prosecution with the result that the interim order also stood vacated.

(3.) The writ petition was, however, restored to file on 26.3.2010 in Misc. Case No. 735/2010 for hearing on merit, but the stay order was not revived. Apparently, the Managing Committee of Madrassa, taking advantage of the vacation of the stay order, passed resolution No. 2 dated 1.3.2011 re-affirming the resolution dated 17.9.2006, which had discharged the petitioner from the post of Headmudaris of the Madrassa. The discharge resolution was approved by the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 24.6.2011 by directing the In-charge Headmudaris to submit a proposal for filling up the post held by the petitioner through advertisement. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the respondent No. 2 on 18.6.2012 to cancel the said order dated 5.8.2006 and allow him to work as Headmudaris by taking over the charge from the respondent No. 7. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 issued the order dated 6.8.2012 by keeping the said order dated 24.6.2011 in abeyance pending final disposal of WP(C) No. 4532/2006. Consequently, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 to release the cheque for financial assistance to him as the Headmudaris of the Madrassa. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 issued the order dated 17.9.2012 clarifying that the respondent No. 7 should be considered as Headmudaris/Secretary of the Madrassa for the purpose of provincialization, which would be finally disposed of on receipt of the order from this Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid others, the petitioner is once again initiating another round of litigation by way of this writ petition for appropriate remedy.