ALTAF HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking provincialization of his service as Assistant Teacher of Amaitilla L.P.School, Karimganj District after quashing the provincialization of the service of the respondent No. 7.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as projected in his writ petition, is that he was initially appointed as 3rd Assistant Teacher of Amaitilla L.P. School, Karimganj District on 10-2- 2005 by the Managing Committee of the school: he has been continuing in that post till now without any break. The fact that he has been working in that school is evident from the inspection reports submitted by the authorities from time to time. The school has now fulfilled the criteria for provincialization of the services of its employees. The respondent No. 7 was appointed as 1st Assistant Teacher of the school on 15-3-1994. When the respondent No. 7 was found to be habitual absentee, the School Managing Committee adopted a resolution on 27-4-2013 terminating his service and upgraded the petitioner to the post of 2nd Assistant Teacher. When the school was brought under provincialization, the services of the working employees including the service of the respondent No. 6 came to be regularized w.e.f. 1-1-2003. The service of the respondent No. 6 was also provincialized. However, the post of 2nd Assistant Teacher held by the petitioner has been kept vacant for some inexplicable reason. According to the petitioner, though the District Scrutiny Committee, Karimganj recommended provincialiation of his service, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent No. 2) by the impugned order dated 21-1-2014 provincialized the service of the respondent No. 7. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the intervention of this Court.

(3.) Both the respondent No. 3 (District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj) and the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj District filed their respective affidavits-inopposition. However, the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 is conspicuous by its ambiguity and need not be referred to. According to the respondent No. 3, the District Scrutiny Committee, Karimganj recommended the names of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for provincialization of their services against the post of Head Teacher and Assistant Teacher of the school respectively as they were appointed in the school on 12-3-1994 and 15-3-1994 respectively whereas the petitioner was appointed only on 10-2-2005 as 3rd Assistant Teacher. It was on the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee that the respondent No. 2 provincialized the service of the respondent No. 6, who was appointed as the Head Teacher of the school while showing the post of 2nd Assistant Teacher as vacant. The respondent No. 6 submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 through the answering respondent on 1-7-2013 for changing the name of the 2nd Assistant Teacher (respondent No. 7). The respondent No. 3 thereafter forwarded the said application along with the resolutions of the School Managing Committee before the respondent No. 2 for doing the needful. The respondent No.2 thereafter asked the answering respondent No. 3 to verify the claims of the respondent No. 7, who then submitted is detailed report to the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 28-10-2013. According to his report, as per the school, the respondent No. 7 was appointed earlier than the petitioner, but he was irregular in attending the school and that the SMC, after issuing several notices to the respondent No. 7 terminated his service vide the resolution dated 27-4-2013 for long absence from duty. The petitioner, who was appointed on 10-2-2005, was thereafter upgraded to the post of 2nd Assistant Teacher. The answering respondent stated that the petitioner, upon verification of the school records, found that the petitioner is working as the Assistant Teacher of the school. It is contended by the respondent No. 3 that the School Managing Committee is the sole authority for the appointment and termination of its employees when the school is a venture stage; that in the instant case, the Managing Committee adopted the resolution to terminate the service of the respondent No. 7 due to prolonged absence from duty and correspondingly upgraded the service of the petitioner from 3rd Assistant Teacher to 2nd Assistant Teacher; that the name of the petitioner has been approved by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialization of his service against the vacant post of Assistant Teacher. According to the answering respondent, the respondent No. 7 has never challenged the resolution of the SMC terminating his service.