THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. SHAJAHAN ALI AND 5 ORS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Interlocutory application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date : 21-04-2022 ORDER Heard Mr. J Abedin, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.6 and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party No.1. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent/opposite party Nos.2, 3 & 4 and Mr. J Bokolial, learned counsel for respondent/opposite party No.5. The instant application has been filed by the respondent No.6 in the instant writ petition seeking vacation/modification/alteration of the order dated 26.03.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.2144/2021. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the District Level Committee (DCL) had recommended as many as 4 (four) candidates including the respondent No.6 and the petitioner. The State Level Committee (SLC), however, have recommended for provincialisation of one Mr. Abdul Baten, Rokibar Hussain and the respondent No.6 Ayesha Khatun. But for reasons best known have not recommended the petitioner. On a specific query made to Mr. B Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department as to on what basis the name of the petitioner has not been recommended. He submits that there might be some reasons but the same cannot be divulged at this stage for want of instructions. I have also perused the provisions of the Right of Children to free Page No.# 3/3 and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and more particularly, the Schedule to the said Act. From the Schedule it appears that for Class VI to Class VIII, there has be at least one teacher per Class so that there shall be (i) at least one teacher each for Science and Mathematics; (ii) Social Studies and (iii) Languages. It further appears that from a perusal of Section3 (i)(xi) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation) of Teachers and Reorganization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 that the requirement of minimum of these three teachers of the discipline (i) Science and Mathematics; (ii) Social Studies; and (iii) Language is derived from the Schedule of the Act of 2009. Consequently, sans any material being placed by the respondent Elementary Education Department for which the petitioner is not entitled to being provincialised, this Court is not inclined to modify, alter and cancel the order dated 26.03.2021 and the same shall remain in force till the final disposal of the writ petition. Taking into account that the rights of the petitioner and the respondent No.6 for provincialisation are at stake, the respondent Elementary Education Board is directed to file their affidavit without fail on or before 11.05.2022. Let the matter be listed for admission on 13.05.2022 on which date an attempt shall be made to dispose of the writ petition. The Interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Interlocutory application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Education Act, 2009; Education Provincialisation of Teachers and Reorganization of Educational Institutions Act, 2017.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 21 Apr 2022. The bench was DEVASHIS BARUAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.