MAHMUDA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Department of Finance, appearing for respondent No. 5.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed as Third Assistant Teachers in various Lower Primary Schools under Batadrava Education Block, in the District of Nagaon, Assam, and the schools, in which the petitioners are working, had been provincialised under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2011").

(3.) The petitioners had challenged the validity of Section 4(2) of the Act of 2011, read with the Schedule to the Act, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP(C) 6861/2014. By a judgment and order dated 209.2016, a Division Bench of this Court had declared the Act of 2011 as unconstitutional by allowing the writ petition filed by the present petitioners along with a bunch of other similar writ petitions. After the aforesaid judgement had been delivered, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.10.2016 to the respondent authorities praying for release of their salary for the services rendered by them, which, however, was not attended to.