MANIK LAL CHANDA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in brief is that the petitioner has been working as an Assistant Teacher, in the Practicing Government Senior Basic School at Udharbond in Cachar District w. e. f. 04. 10. 1994. He was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months by the respondent No. 3 vide Memo No. EBA-3/94/13 dated Guwahati, the 4th October 1994 (Annexure-4) against the post-allotted vide Office Order under Memo No. EPD/p/15/94/12 dated 04. 03. 1994. The said ad-hoc appointment was again extended for a further period of three months vide Order dated 13. 02. 1995, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara. Thereafter, again, vide Order dated 14th July 1995, issued by the Director of Elementary Education Department, the service of the petitioner was extended by another four months. Vide Govt. Letter No. EPG-567/91/109 dated 16. 11. 1991 one post of Assistant Teacher was allotted to the petitioner's school and vide PMA-221/92/198 dated 8. 06. 1994 on being directed by the Director of Elementary Education vide his letter dated 29. 12. 1994 and 8th January 1995, the Headmaster of the petitioner's school advertised the post and prepared a panel of fourteen candidates including the petitioner who was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the same was forwarded to the Block Elementary Education Officer, Udharbond, Cachar. Accordingly, the Director of Elementary Education vide his Memo No. EBA-3/94/104 dated Kahilipara 21st September 1995, in continuation of Memo No. EBA-3/94/103-A dated 14. 07. 1995, regularized the service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher against the post allotted vide Letter dated 04. 03. 1994 aforesaid.

(3.) THOUGH the petitioner was regularized against the said allotted post. He was not given salary w. e. f. June 1995, as a result of which the petitioner has been rendering his services without any remuneration. For non-payment of his salary, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 3911/01 and 5343/01 and both the Writ Petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner's salary if he was found to be entitled. But according to the petitioner, the said order was not complied with. It is the petitioner's case that, in the meantime, there arose substantive vacancies of Assistant Teachers due to retirement of two teachers under non-planned stream and that under the policies of the Government, the petitioner was required to be considered for conversion of his tenure to the post in the non-planned stream or by way of adjustment, but no action was taken by the respondent. Rather the respondent No. 2 issued direction to constitute Selection Committee and Screening Committee locally and start the process of selection for appointment against those vacancies. In pursuance to the said direction the Head Master of the School invited some local youths, without advertising the vacancies and prepared a panel to fill up the said vacant posts. The panel was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 and all formalities were completed for appointment. According to the petitioner the said selection has been made illegally without following the due procedure and if the vacancies are filled up then the petitioner will be deprived of his legitimate claim. In the circumstances, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition, seeking direction to keep one of the vacant posts reserved for the petitioner and to adjustment him against such post. The petitioner has further approached for issuing direction to the respondents to release his salary w. e. f. June 1995 in terms of his appointment made vide order dated 04. 10. 1994 and 21. 09. 1995.