DILIP DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who belong to the teaching and non- teaching staff of charaibahi Higher Secondary School (hereafter referred to as the School) are before this Court being denied their arrear salary for the period 29/2/1996 to 6/4/1999 for a wrong allocation of the nomenclature to the discipline of study conducted by the institution at the time of upgradation thereof from High School to the Higher Secondary.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Sarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

(3.) THE pleaded case of the petitioners in short is that whereas the petitioners no. 1 to 7 are the subject teachers of the School, the petitioner No. 8 is the upper Division Assistant thereof. This academic institution which initially was a High School was along with other similarly placed establishments/institutions permitted to start Higher Secondary Classes vide official communication No. PC/sec/113/93/121 dated 21/8/1993 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. In the list annexed to the follow up letter PC/sec/219/93/68 dated 29/7/1994 addressed to the Secretary, Assam Higher Secondary Education Council (hereafter referred to as the Council), the name of the petitioners' school appeared at Sl. No. 90. However, mistakenly though the school imparted education in the Commerce stream, it was recorded therein as the Arts Stream. This was so inspite of a report by the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat District Circle, Jorhat, following her inspection of the said school in which it was clearly mentioned that the higher Secondary section thereof had been in the Commerce stream had been started in the year 1992. To accommodate the incumbents of the upgraded Higher secondary Schools as above, the Education (Planning) Department, Government of assam, sanctioned posts vide letter No. PMA- 282/92/126 dated 29/2/1996. Inspite of the upgradation of their school, in view of the error in the discipline of study as recorded the petitioners' school was left out and the posts sanctioned and earmarked for it were not released. Resultantly, the petitioners were also denied their consequential service entitlements w. e. f. 7/9/1994 though available to others. A number of representations were submitted.