RABBUL HUDA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts to be noticed is that petitioners herein were appointed by the Managing Committee of different schools during the period from 1996 to 1998 at a time when the said schools had already been provincialised. By two successive orders dated 03.03.1999 and 25.11.1999, the services of all the petitioners were regularized against sanctioned post by order of the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Morigaon. The said orders of regularization was not disowned by the State respondents at any point of time. An order dated 19.02.2009 was issued by the DEEO, Morigaon, whereby their retention orders along with other similarly situated teachers were kept in abeyance. This order of 19.02.2009 was put to challenge by the petitioners herein in WP(C) No.2500/2011 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2011 remanding the matter for consideration by the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose. In the present writ petition, challenge is made to the decision taken by the Expert Committee on 24.07.2012 recommending rejection of the claim of the petitioners and also instructing the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to cause an inquiry into the matter as to how the other teachers similarly situated were receiving salary.

(2.) While challenging the said order of the Expert Committee dated 24.07.2012, the petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to take steps for payment of their salary from the time when orders of regularization had been issued in their favour.

(3.) Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue with regard to their initial appointment cannot be reopened as subsequent steps had already been taken by the respondent authorities by regularizing their service against sanctioned post. Mr. Dutta also alleges hostile discrimination, in that, persons similarly situated who had been appointed by the Managing Committee, have been granted salary. It is also contended that the Committee while recommending rejection of the claim of the petitioners had relied upon a report of an Expert Sub-Committee, the contents of which was not made known to the petitioners. Lastly, the impugned order of the Expert Committee dated 24.07.2012 was rendered without due application of mind and without considering the fact that each of the petitioners have worked for more than 15 years without any let or hindrance, save and except, that their salaries have not been paid since the year 1999.