HEM CHANDRA BARTHAKUR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this writ petition relates to the process of recruitment/ employment of teachers under the Sate Government that has arisen in the following circumstances.

(2.) The Department of Information and Public Relation (Jana Sanjog) of the Govt of Assam by notification dated 13.9.91 invited applications for filling up various vacancies under the Elementary Education including the vacancies of Assistant Teacher in Middle Schools of Assam. The notification indicated about the vacancies meant for 5474 schools of Assam. The petitioner responded to the notification and submitted his application alongwith the testimonials before the last date. In due time the State Govt constituted a Sub- Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education for selection of candidates for appointment of teachers in Primary Schools and Middle Schools in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Govt from time to time. Petitioner was called upon to appear for interview before the Sub Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education of Kaliabor Sub Division on 17.11.91 and petitioner appeared before the Selection Board. According to The petitioner a select list was published on 25.4.93 for the Kaliabor Sub Division selecting 61 (sixty one) candidates for appointment in Middle Schools of Kaliabor Constituency. The selection board also selected the petitioner and his name figured at S1 No. 41 of the select list. It was further asserted that out of the 61 candidates selected by the aforesaid select list the first 10 (ten) candidates from S1. No, 1 to 10 were appointed as per rules without any deviation from the merit list. The Selection Board thereafter approved another 12 (twelve) names from the aforesaid select list on 4.10.93 in which the name of Mrs Amiya Bhagawati whose name appeared at S1. No. 42 of the list dated 25.4.93 was brought in S1. No. 20 superseding the claim of the petitioner. The said Board also brought another person, namely Sri Pranoy Kumar Baruah against S1. Mo. 22 though his name did not figure in the select list of 25.4.93. The aforesaid two persons were thereafter appointed in August and September, 1994. One Smti Uparani Bhagawati whose name figured at S1. No. 21 of the list dated 25.4.93 questioned the appointment of the aforesaid two persons in Civil Rule No. 4307/95. The High Court entertained her petition and by an order dated 17.10.95 the Court ordered in the interim that any appointment that may be made would be subject to the result of the Civil Rule. During the pendency of the said Civil Rule the aforesaid Uparani Bhagawati was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Dewri Silabandha ME School under Kaliabor Sub Division against a vacancy caused on retirement of Smti Phuleswari Devi. The petitioner also cited the instance of appointment of Sri NilambamDev Nath (the respondent No. 4) and Sri Mukul Saikia in the year 1996 as Assistant Teacdiers in Kuthari ME School and Solong ME School respectively. Out of the said two persons Sri Mukul Saikia was a selected candidate Where Sri Nilambani Dev Nath was not so. Petitioner further asserted that he was accommodated against a deputation vacancy which came to an end on 7.9.93. Thereafter he was appointed on 20.10.93 as an Assistant Teacher against a deputation vacancy in Chekoni Borhola ME School under Kaliabor Sub Division against the vacancy caused due to deputation of a teacher for normal training in 1994. Accordingly petitioner joined his service on 20.10.93 and rendered satisfactory service as Assistant Teacher upto 31.8.94 and had to leave the said post on resumption of duty by the deputed teacher. The service rendered by the petitioner was acclaimed by the Headmaster and Secretary of the School and issued certificate to that effect. Petitioner moved the authority seeking remedial measrore. The Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Assam apprised the petitioner of the ban on appointment put by the Government and addressed a letter to the District Elementary Education Officer. Nagaon forwarding the documents and requesting him to take necessary action as per Govt rules and procedure after lifting the ban on appointment, vide letter dated 6th April, 1995. The said letter also included the name of the petitioner alongwith one Sri Promoth Nath Dev of Cachar. Petitioner thereafter also persuaded the matter with the authority and failing to obtain any positive response from the authority moved this Court by way of this application seeking a mandamus commanding on the respondents to appointing him in any vacant post on the basis of the said select list.

(3.) The matter is pending before this Court since 1996 and despite granting time the respondents did not file any affidavit.