RINA RANI DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3074/2011, WP(C) No. 3088/2011, WP(C) No. 3137/2011, WP(C) No. 4572/2011, WP(C) No. 4696/2011, WP(C) No. 5076/2011, WP(C) No. 4792/2011, WP(C) No. 3087/2011, WP(C) No. 5075/2011, WP(C) No. 5580/2011, WP(C) No. 4590/2011, WP(C) No. 5613/2011, WP(C) No. 3075/2011, WP(C) No. 3689/2011, Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3218/2011, Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.3380/2011, WP(C) No. 3385/2011, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2250/2011, WP(C) No. 2248/2011, WP(C) No. 2253/2011, WP(C) No. 2251/2011, WP(C) No. 2252/2011, Mr. R. C. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3594/2011, Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3057/2011 and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) This batch of 24 writ petitions had been preferred more or less under the same circumstances and the factual aspects involved is to a great extent similar with each other. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in different High schools in the district of Nalbari and the genesis of such appointments are ascertained to be traceable to an advertisement dated 03.09.1991, pursuant to which, a select list was published on 04.01.1995. It is the case of the petitioners that they were either appointed pursuant to the said advertisement and the select list or they were appointed pursuant to the select list, but possibly beyond the advertised vacancies, while some other petitioners have ascertained that they were appointed pursuant to different orders of this Court in different writ petitions, while others were appointed prior to the said advertisement and select list. It is submitted that on the other hand, some of the writ petitioners were also appointed after the aforesaid advertisement in a process, which was covered by the advertisement of 1991.

(3.) The common grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to a show cause notice dated 26.04.2011, which is annexed as Annexure-14 (series) to the writ petition, the petitioners were asked to appear before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) department for a personal hearing with all relevant documents on 30.04.2011. Accordingly, the petitioners had appeared, but thereafter, the letter dated 26.05.2011, which is annexed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition, was issued under the signature of the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nablari, whereby it was provided that on perusal of the select list prepared by the authorities on 04.01.1995 for appointment of Assistant Teachers during the year 1995-1996, the names of the petitioners do not appear in the select list and therefore, they were appointed beyond the selection process. Accordingly, they were asked to show cause as to why there services as Assistant Teachers would not be terminated as the appointment orders were illegal and in contravention to existing rules of appointment. Thereafter, by the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, which is annexed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition, the authorities arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners could neither prove the legality of their appointments nor could justify their continuation in service and that since their selection is per-se illegal, their continuation in service would also be illegal. Accordingly, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam was directed to complete the process of terminating the services of the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP(C) No.5216/1996 and other connected writ petitions. In the said order, which is in respect of seven teachers, namely, Paramananda Mishra, Kohinur Begum, Boctoza Ahmed, Md. Abdur Rezak, Rina Rani Deka, Bahar Ali Ahmed and Imam Ali, the authorities came to a conclusion that they were first appointed and probably their names were incorporated in the select list and taking into account the number of vacancies, none of them can be treated as legal appointees.