Judgment · High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. P. Cha kraborty, learned standing counsel Education Department appearing for the respon dent Nos.1 to 3. The names of other respondents were strike out from the list of respondents in view of the order dated 01.07.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.1696/

#2011. The petitioners by the present writ petition are seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them pursuant to the select list dated 03. 03.1994 published by the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara, select ing the candidates for appointment as assistant teacher in intermediate post in various middle schools under Goalpara Sub-Division in the district of Goalpara, constituency wise. According to the petitioners though they were selected for appointment a s assistant teacher and their names find place in the said select list dated 03. 03.1994, an attempt has been made to appoint the persons whose name appear below the names of the petitioners on the ground that they approached this Court in C ivil Rule Nos.1569/1995 and 5426/1998, which writ petitions were disposed of dir ecting the State respondents to consider the cases of the writ petitioners there in for appointment in terms of the select list dated 03.03.1994 prepared and pub lished by the District Elementary Education Officer. The petitioners, therefore, have prayed for a direction to appoint the persons, whose names appeared in the aforesaid select list maintaining the merit position. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents despite pen dency of the writ petition for about 14 years. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that si nce on the date when the writ petition was filed i.e. on 01.12.1998, the select list dated 03.03.1994 was valid, the writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners on the basis of their meri t position in the select list, if any other candidate, whose name appeared below the names of the petitioners are appointed pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 22.01.1996 passed in CR No.1569/1995 and order dated 16.11.1 999 passed in CR No.5426/1998, whereby and whereunder the State respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners therein for appointment pursua nt to the said select list dated 03.03.1994 by maintaining the merit position. Ms. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel Education Department submits t hat under the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) R ules, 1977, the select list remains valid from the date of its publication for a period of 1(one) year, and on the date when the writ petitioners approached thi s Court, the said select list was not valid. The learned counsel, however, could not make any submission relating to the contention of the writ petitioners that there is an attempt made to appoint the persons, whose names appeared below the names of the petitioners in the said select list pursuant to the orders dated 2 2.01.1996 and 16.11.1999 passed in CR No.1569/1995 and CR No.5426/1998, respecti vely. The learned standing counsel Education Department also could not apprise t his Court as to whether the validity of the said select list was subsequently ex tended as according to the petitioners the validity of the said select list was extended from time to time and the same was valid on the date of filing of the w rit petition i.e. on 01.12.1998. It appears that the select list was published by the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara on 03.03.1994 selecting the candidates for appointm ent as assistant teacher in intermediate post for middle schools under Goalpara Sub-Division. The said select list was prepared constituency wise. The names of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 appeared at Sl. Nos.68, 63 and 49, respectively, i n respect of the Goalpara constituency and that of the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 ap peared at Sl. Nos.18 and 51, respectively, in respect of Jaleswar constituency. It also appears that certain other candidates, selected vide said select list da ted 03.03.1994, approached this Court in CR No.1569/1995, wherein an order was p assed directing the respondents to consider the case of those writ petitioners i n accordance with their position in the select list. The Director, thereafter, v ide order dated 20.05.1998 directed the District Elementary Education Officer to appoint the petitioners in that writ petition only, in order of merit, as assis tant teacher. The said order was again put to challenge in CR No.5426/1998, wher ein though a prayer for interim order for stay of the said order dated 20.05.199 8 was made, the same having been rejected, the Writ Appeal No.341/1998 was filed . The writ appellate court vide order dated 18.11.1998 stayed the operation of t he said order dated 20.05.1998 passed by the Director. CR No.5426/1998 was, ther eafter, disposed of vide order dated 16.11.1999 with a direction to the District Elementary Education Officer to consider the case of the writ petitioners in th e said writ petition for appointment, if the select list was in force and to app oint them to any existing vacancy. It is not known whether those writ petitioner s were thereafter appointed. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners on 19.01.2011 also nothing has been said in that regard. As noticed above, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 despite pendency of the writ petition for about 14 years did not file the affidavit-in-opposition, thereby p utting the Court in a position where no specific finding can be recorded relatin g to the validity of the select list on the date when the petitioners have appro ached this Court by means of the present writ petition and also the appointment of any other candidate, whose name appeared below the names of the petitioners i n the select list dated 03.03.1994. Unless it is ascertained as to whether the s elect list was valid on the date when the writ petitioners have approached this Court and the said select list was acted upon as well as whether any other perso n, whose names appeared below the names of the petitioners in the said select li st dated 03.03.1994 have been appointed, no direction can be issued. Having regard to the aforesaid position, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the foll owing directions:- (i) The Commissioner & Secretary, Education (Elementary) Department shall as certain as to whether the select list dated 03.03.1994 was valid on the date whe n the petitioners had approached this Court i.e. on 01.12.1998. (ii) Whether any candidate, whose name appeared after the names of the petiti oners in the aforesaid select list in the respective constituencies, were appoin ted pursuant to the orders dated 22.01.1996 and 16.11.1999 passed in CR Nos.1569 /1995 and 5426/1998. (iii) Whether the said select list was acted upon. In case, the Commissioner & Secretary finds that the select list was val id on the date when the petitioners approached this Court and the persons, whose names appeared after the names of the petitioners in the said select list in th e respective constituency, were appointed, necessary order directing the appoint ment of the petitioners shall be passed. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order to be pro duced by any of the petitioners before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department. The Commissioner & Secretary shall also take into account the availability of vacancies. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.