RANJANA BEGUM LASKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions being founded on similar facts and the reliefs sought for being identical, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in WP (C) No. 4549/2003 was appointed on 02. 02. 98 as an honourary teacher in No. 745 Punirmukh L. P. School under Dholai Police Station in the district of Cachar. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar by an order dated 23. 02. 2001 appointed / adjusted the petitioner against a substantive vacant post in the same school. The petitioner contends that notwithstanding the fact that she had been rendering continuous service with effect from the date of her appointment as an honourary teacher, no salary was forthcoming even after her adjustment against a substantive vacant post. She, therefore, instituted a writ proceeding before this Court i. e. WP (C) No. 7593/2001 seeking a direction for payment of her salary with effect from 23. 02. 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 19. 10. 2001 with a direction to the Director of Elementary Education to enquire into the matter and if the petitioner was found to be entitled to her salary, to pass appropriate orders for payment thereof. The petitioner has further stated that similar orders were passed by this Court in cases of other Assistant Teachers who were appointed in a similar manner as the petitioner. As such orders were not being implemented, certain aggrieved persons (not the petitioner) had instituted a contempt proceeding before this Court i. e. Contempt Case No. 82/2002. In the said contempt case the Director of Elementary Education had filed an affidavit dated 31. 05. 2002 enclosing a copy of the report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar dated 06. 04. 2002 which was to the effect that the appointments in question including that of the petitioner were not in accordance with law. The petitioner has further averred that on the basis of the said report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar dated 06. 04. 2002, the Director of Elementary Education has passed an order on 30. 05. 2002 stating that all the concerned persons including the petitioner were appointed by the Managing Committees of the Schools after provincialisation which was without any authority of law and further that there are no records pertaining to their appointment or adjustments available in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar. In the aforesaid order it was further stated by the Director that the adjustments in question including that of the petitioner were made by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, one B. C. Sarma, just on the eve of his retirement and that a magisterial enquiry in the matter was going on. As the aforesaid stand taken by the Director created an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that she may be terminated, the petitioner had moved this Court again by instituting another writ proceeding i. e. WP (C) No. 5775/2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 21. 09. 2002 by directing the respondents therein to follow the due procedure of law before resorting to termination of the service of the petitioner. In the meantime, according to the petitioner, the report of the magisterial enquiry had been submitted which indicated that the appointment of the petitioner is genuine and that she has been found to be attending to her duties regularly. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction not to terminate the service of the petitioner and, instead, to regularise the same and pay to the petitioner her salary which has remained unpaid from the date of her adjustment i,e, 23. 02. 2001.

(3.) THE facts involved in the connected writ petition i. e. WP (C) No. 4550/2003 are identical with those recited above. The petitioner therein was appointed on honourary basis in the Raghuram L. P. School in the district of Cachar on 22. 08. 99 and was adjusted by similar order of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar dated 22. 02. 2001. The other details of case need not be stated in view of the facts already noticed in connection with WP (C) No. 4549/2003.