GOPAL CHANDRA SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Shri A. S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Shri V. M. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, for the respondents.

(2.) THESE two appeals are against the common judgment and order dated 22. 11. 2004 of the learned single Judge in which the relief for retrospective provincialisation of the services of the appellants-writ petitioners from the day the benefits of provincialisation had been given to similarly situated persons was rejected by the learned single judge.

(3.) THE brief facts leading to these appeals are simple and undisputed. Shri A. S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners-appellants, submits that St. Joseph's High School, Barpeta, was given recognition by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as early as in the year 1970 and Katajihar High School, Barpeta, was also given recognition in the year 1991. The Government of Assam took a decision to provincialise the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of 250 Nos. High Schools/high Masrassa Schools, which have received recognition from the Board up to the year 1991 and the appellant-writ petitioners were eligible for consideration of provincialisation as their schools had been given recognition in the year 1970 and 1991 respectively. However, the cases of the appellants-writ petitioners were left out or excluded from getting the benefit of provincialisation which had been given to other similarly situated persons in the year 1995. However, the case of the appellants-writ petitioners were considered afresh for provincialisation through a proposal dated 18. 06. 1996 and ultimately the services of the appellants were provincialised by the Govt. vide order dated 08. 06. 1999. The appellants-writ petitioners came out before this Court in Writ Petition (c) Nos. 7306/2001 and 7307/2001 praying for direction to have their services provincialised with effect from 01. 08. 1995 i. e. from the day the services of other similarly situated persons had been provincialised. The reasons disclosed by the Government for the exclusion of the appellants are "oversight and inadvertence" and the learned single Bench has already recorded its findings in this aspect, which are quoted below :