RUKIA BEGUM Vs. AZIZULA ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a classic case where an officer of Education Department of the Government of Assam has by filing a false and misleading affidavit supporting the cause of the writ petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein) mislead the learned Single Judge to pass an order setting aside the order of appointment of the appellant (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) and also directing the official respondents to appoint the writ petitioner in the post of Arabic teacher (Assistant Teacher) in Balabari High Madrassa, Mangaldai, in place of the appellant.

(2.) The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner filed a writ petition, which was registered as WP(C) No. 2732 of 1999 challenging the appointment of the appellant as Arabic teacher in Balabari High Madrassa, Mangaldai, Darrang, contending inter alia that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Superintendent of Balabari High Madrassa for filling up of a post of Arabic teacher, he applied and appeared in the interview on 21.08.98 and also did well expecting to get first position but he was surprised when the appellant was appointed in the said post, even without publishing the merit list of selected candidates. The respondent/writ petitioner therefore prayed for setting aside the appointment of the appellant and also for a direction to appoint him in the said post.

(3.) The learned Single Judge initially vide order dated 08.06.99 issued notice of motion and thereafter on 08.04.2004 admitted the writ petitioner for hearing. What is very disturbing is that though the learned State counsel on 08.06.99 itself entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition, namely, the State of Assam, represented by the Secretary, Education Department; Director, Secondary Education, Assam and Inspector of School, Darrang District Circle, Mangaldai, neither any affidavit-in-opposition was filed nor the record was produced before the court. What is more disturbing is that the Superintendent, Balabari High Madrassa, respondent No.4 in the writ petition, filed an affidavit on 17.03.2003 through a learned counsel who is not the State counsel, stating therein that pursuant to the interview held on 21.08.98, a merit list/panel list was prepared placing the petitioner at serial No.2, appellant (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) below the writ petitioner and respondent No.6 at serial No.l. It has further been stated on oath by the Superintendent that respondent No.6 in the writ petition, who secured first position in the merit list was not interested to the post and though the appellant was placed at below the writ petitioner she brought an order of appointment issued by the Director and so he allowed her to join the service as Arabic teacher in the school as he cannot disobey the order of the Director. The Superintendent in his affidavit further stated that as the writ petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 in the select list, he should have been appointed but all these matters has little to do after the appointment of the appellant.