BISHNU DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. R. Mahilary, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the BTC.

(2.) This writ petition had been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 20/9/2013 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and with prayers for directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner the benefits of the provincialisation as an Assistant Teacher of Sonapani Sarbajanin L. P. School, Udalguri. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been granted the benefits of provincialisation in service by an order dtd. 16/5/2013 under the erstwhile Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 as amended in 2012. On such order being passed one Sri Chitta Ranjan Sarma had approached this Court by WP (C)/3837/2013 and by order dtd. 16/7/2013 this Court had directed that the provincialisation benefit should not be granted to the petitioner herein until the next returnable date. Following such an order, the Director of Elementary Education Assam had withdrawn the order of provincialisation granted in favour of the petitioner in the Sonapani Sarbajanin L. P. School. The order reflected that the withdrawal was done in connection with the High Court case in WP(C)/3873/2013 filed by Sri Chitta Ranjan Sarma. WP(C)/3873/2013 came to be disposed of on 8/1/2018, directing the petitioner therein to approach the appropriate Education Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The same order had also observed that the interim order passed earlier on 16/7/2013 stood merged with this order. The petitioner not having been granted the benefits of provincialisation even after disposal of the WP (C)/3873/2013, he filed a representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam Kahilipara, praying to be afforded the benefits since the writ petition no longer survived and the interim order had already merged into the final order passed in the writ petition. When he was not given any benefit, the petitioner approached this Court with prayers as mentioned herein before. The respondent No.10 in this writ petition who was the petitioner in WP(C)/3873/2013 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, whereby, a statement has been made that he had preferred Educational Tribunal case No.1/ 2018 before the Education Tribunal Udalguri and the writ petitioner had also been made a party thereto. This affidavit was filed on 8/2/2019. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply, whereby, he has brought on record the order dtd. 15/6/2023, by which the litigation, initiated by the respondent No.10 in this writ petition, was dismissed for default and disposed of. It is stated at the bar by Mr. R. Sarma, that no appeal or restoration of the aforesaid dismissal has been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner in this case.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this Court had directed that the benefits of the provinciali-sation in favour of the petitioner be kept in abeyance only till the returnable date in WP(C) /3873/2013 and it was an arbitrary act of the Director of Elementary Education to have withdrawn the entire order by which the benefit of provincialisation was restored upon the petitioner. He has submitted that it would have been another case had the order of provinci-alisation being kept in abeyance till disposal of the writ petition. However, the respondent authorities hurriedly had withdrawn the entire provincialisation which does not appear to be the intent of the order dtd. 16/7/2013, passed in WP(C)/3837/2013. He further submitted that at any case, when the writ petition had been disposed of without granting any of the prayers made by the petitioner in WP(C)/3837/2013, and interim order passed earlier should merge with this order, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to have revived the order of provincialisation passed in favour of the petitioner on 16/5/2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the litigation before the Educational Tribunal also having now brought to a closure by the order dtd. 15/6/2023, the withdrawal of the benefit of the provincialisation from the petitioner needs interference of this Court and the petitioner deserves to be bestowed the benefits of provincialisation from the date on which it was originally granted to him. He has accordingly prayed that the order dtd. 20/9/2013 be interfered with and the petitioner be given all the consequential benefits. The BTC has not filed any affidavit in the matter.