High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4493/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
Legal Reasoning
me of the respondent No.5 Haidar Ali Mullah is conspicuously missing in the insp ection report(s). 8. Having considered the above and noticing that the Dy. Director of Madras sa Education failed to consider the claim for regularization of the two rivals f or the post of Hindi Teacher in the Mohammadia Senior Madrassa, in pursuant to t he Court’s judgment dated 20.2.2006, I am of the view that direction for fresh s election without such consideration was unjustified. But it also appears that th e selection process was undertaken in pursuant to the Dy. Director’s impugned di rection dated 29.3.2006 and after advertisement and selection, the respondent No .5 Haidar Ali Mullah was appointed as the Hindi Teacher of the Madrassa on 17.11 .2008. In such circumstances, I feel that justice will be done if the Director 9. of Madrassa Education considers the claim of Saidul Amin Ahmed and Haidar Ali Mu llah for the post of Hindi Teacher in the Mohammadia Senior Madrassa, as was ord ered by the Court in the WP(C) No.791/2005. But as Haidar Ali Mullah (respondent No.5) has since been appointed, the approval to the appointment will abide by t he consideration for regularization, in terms of the Court’s direction in the ea rlier round. Hearing may accordingly be afforded to both the contenders by the D irector and thereafter a speaking order on merit should be passed. The education al qualification of both the contenders may also be considered for the post of H indi Teacher. 10. To facilitate the exercise, the petitioner will furnish this order and t he relevant case records including the affidavit(s) to the Director of Madrassa Education. The appointment of respondent No.5 as the Hindi Teacher in the Mohamm adia Senior Madrassa as per the resolution dated 17.11.2008 will abide by the fr esh decision to be taken now by the Director of Madrassa Education. The requisit e exercise should be carried out expeditiously and preferably within 8 weeks, fr om the date of intimation from the petitioner. 11.
Arguments
Heard Mr. AR Bhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The responde nt Nos.1-4 are represented by Mr. UK Goswami, the standing counsel, Education De partment. Although counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, he is unrepresented when the case is called. 2. The petitioner earlier served as Hindi Teacher in the Mohammadia Senior Madrassa, Goalpara District. His rival in the same school Haidar Ali Mullah file d the WP(C) No.791/2005, whereby regularization of his service in the Madrassa w as prayed for. The present petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the WP(C ) No.791/2005. This case was disposed of on 20.2.2006 (page 46) with direction t o the Dy. Director, Madrassa Education to consider the regularization claim of t he two rivals, in accordance with law. Fresh selection was also permitted by the Court if qualified candidates are not available. Thereafter selection for the post of Hindi Teacher was ordered on 29.3.2 3. 006 (Annexure-O) and the petitioner and the respondent No.5 was released by the common order dated 26.5.2008 (Annexure-Q) by the Superintendent of the Madrassa, to enable the two claimants to participate in the fresh recruitment process, if they wished. 4. The petitioner contends that the fresh selection for the post of Hindi T eacher should not have been straightway ordered by the Dy. Director, without fir st considering the claim for regularization ordered by the Court for the petitio ner and the respondent No.5 in the WP(C) No.791/2005. That apart, in the subsequ ent release order of 26.5.2008 (Annexure-Q), no reasons are disclosed as to why, approval for the post of Hindi Teacher to either the writ petitioner or the res pondent No.5 couldn’t be granted. Accordingly it is argued by Advocate Mr. AR Bh uiyan that the two impugned orders of 29.3.2006 (Annexure-O) and 26.5.2008 (Anne xure-Q) are not in consonance with the order passed by this Court on 20.2.2006 i n WP(C) No.791/2005, which was filed by Haidar Ali Mullah (respondent No.5). 5. Representing the departmental authorities, Mr. UK Goswami, learned stand ing counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Dy. Director, Madrassa Education on 23.1.2009 to project that the Mohammadia Senior Madrassa was a vent ure institution to whom Government financial assistance was sanctioned in 2005-2 006. But the petitioner was found to be unqualified for the post of Hindi Teache r and that is why he may not have been granted a share of the Government financi al assistance. On the direction for the de novo process of selection, the respon dents contend that this was done in pursuant to the Court’s earlier direction. 6. Although the respondent No.5 is unrepresented, in his affidavit it is av erred that after the fresh selection was ordered by the departmental authority, an advertisement was issued on 2.6.2008 in pursuant to which the petitioner and the respondent No.5 afforded their candidatures. The selection committee then re commended the respondent No.5 Haidar Ali Mullah and accordingly on the basis of the School Managing Committee’s (SMC) resolution, the respondent No.5 was appoin ted as the Hindi Teacher of the Mohammadia Senior Madrassa on 17.11.2008. But be cause of the pendency of this case the Director hasn’t accorded approval to the appointment of respondent No.5. 7. In the earlier round i.e. WP(C) No.791/2005, the present petitioner as t he respondent No.5 contended that his rival Haidar Ali Mullah was the son of the President of the SMC and although he was absent for several years, he was broug ht in as the 2nd Hindi Teacher without approval of the departmental authorities. But the petitioner claims to have been serving as the Hindi Teacher as per the appointment order dated 12.2.1992 and it is asserted that in the inspection(s) c arried out of the Madrassa on 14.10.1995, 20.9.1996 and 21.8.2002, the name of t he petitioner Saidul Amin Ahmed is reflected as the Hindi Teacher whereas the na
Decision
The case is disposed of accordingly without any order on costs.