High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr . D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam alongwith Mr. P.N. Goswami, l earned SC, Education Department. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-P order dated 25.07.2011 by whic h her service as Subject Teacher in Zoology has been cancelled/ terminated with immediate effect. Such a course of action has been adopted pursuant to the judgm ent and order dated 06.08.2010 passed in PIL No. 14/2010 in original W.P.(C) No. 3178/2008 (Smt. Julekha Wahida Ahmed vs. state of Assam and ors.) and also purs uant to Govt. letters dated 03.05.2011 and 30.03.2011. Although in the impugned order the petitioner has been referred to as Subject Teacher in Zoology in Palas hbari R.H. H.S. & M.P. School, Mirza in the District of Kamrup, but in the Speci al Investigation Team (SIT) report based on which her service has been dispensed with, she was shown to have been appointed against a post of Subject Teacher in Zoology in another school, namely Rajdhar Bora H.S. School, Kamrup wherein she was never appointed. In this connection, the petitioner has also referred to ter mination of the service of another teacher, namely Smt. Gitanjali Deka, Subject Teacher in Zoology whose service was also dispensed with by the said impugned or der dated 25.07.2011. In the said order Smt. Gitanjali Deka has been shown to be Subject Teacher in Rajdhar Bora H.S. School, Kamrup. According to the petitione r, there is wrong identification of the post being held by her. The impugned order dated 25.07.2011 is pursuant to the judgment and orde r dated 06.08.2010 passed in PIL No. 14/2010 (W.P.(C) No. 3178/2008). It appears that pertaining to 1995 selection a challenge was made by one Smt. Julekha Wahi da Ahmed making a grievance against her non-appointment. It is the case of the p etitioner that she occupied the merit position at serial No. 47 and since the p ersons below her was appointed, she is also entitled to get appointment. It appears that an enquiry was ordered by the Division Bench in the afor esaid PIL proceeding pursuant to which a Special Investigation Team (SIT) conduc ted the enquiry and submitted its report. On the basis of the said report, the D ivision Bench in its judgment and order dated 06.08.2010 made certain observatio ns relating to certain appointments. Eventually, by the said judgment following directions was made: (cid:28)10. In this case it has become quite apparent that undeserving candidat es were appointed during 1995-2001 to the posts of Zoology Subject Teachers in d ifferent provincialised Higher Secondary Schools in Assam. When such illegal app ointments are found to have been made appropriate judicial order(s) for terminat ion of such illegal appointment has to follow. In the present case however all s uch appointees are not before the Court i.e. Smti. Manimala Kakoti, Smti. Banti Talukdar, Smti. Gitanjali Deka (from Group-A); Smti. Bijuli Chakraborty (from Gr oup-B) and Smti Dipali Bora (from Group-C). All the relevant facts, i.e. circums tances in which the 7 regularisation under Group-B and 3 regularisation under Gr oup-C were made are not before the Court. Whether such regularisation was agains t the advertised posts and if not what had happened to the advertised posts is a lso not known with certainty. In such circumstances it may not be appropriate fo r the Court to pass any order for cancellation of the appointments. But consider ing the information gathered by the SIT, we deem it appropriate to direct the St ate to take into account the report of the SIT and thereafter take appropriate s teps to discontinue the services of such appointees who got undeserved appointme nts. Of course if any adverse action is to be taken against any appointee, they ought to be given an opportunity before termination orders are issued.

11. Since relevant Government records pertaining to appointment in public of fices have gone missing and were consequently withheld from scrutiny of the Cour t, necessary steps be taken by the State to unearth the missing records. Depart mental action be taken against the persons identified by the SIT as responsible for the above. The State must also fix responsibility and proceed against the er rant officials who may be found to be responsible for the appointments that may be eventually set aside by the State. (cid:29) As will be evident from the above quoted paragraph-10 of the judgment, i t came to the light of the Court that some undeserving candidates were appointed during the 1995-2000 in the post of Zoology Subject Teacher in different provin cialised Higher Secondary Schools in Assam. On the other hand, the case of the p etitioner that she was appointed way back in 1990 on temporary basis and after continuation in service for quite some time, her service was regularised by orde r dated 18.05.2007 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. Thus, a ccording to the petitioner, her regularisation of service has nothing to do in 1 995 selection. Above apart, according to the petitioner she was never served with any s how cause notice towards termination of service. In this connection, she has mad e categorical statement in paragraph-17 of the writ petition to which the respon dent No. 3 in its counter affidavit has only stated that notice was served on th e petitioner and even the Inspector of Schools were directed to instruct the con cerned Subject Teachers under their jurisdiction to appear before the authority for hearing. Such a course of action was adopted by Annexure-B letter dated 20.0 5.2011 in which the name of the petitioner also appeared. However, her school wa s mentioned as Rajdhar Bora H.S. school, Kamrup where she never served. The peti tioner was first appointed in R.P.B. H.S. School, South Solmara, Dhubri and ther eafter she was transferred to Palasbari R.B. H.S. & M.P. School, Mirza, Kamrup. Thus in the notice neither her original school nor the school to which she was t ransferred was indicated. Consequently, the petitioner did not receive any notic e. The impugned order speaks of examining the show cause notice of the pet itioner, although the fact of the matter is that she could not submit any show c ause notice as she was not served with any notice. Thus the impugned order dated 27.05.2011 was passed without putting the petitioner to any kind of notice and resultantly there was gross violation of the principle of natural justice so far as the service of the petitioner could not have been dispensed with by a stroke of pen after long 17 years of service. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.07.2011 so far the sam e relates to the petitioner, is set aside and quashed and the petitioner shall b e deemed to be in service from the date of her termination/ cancellation of her appointment. Consequently, she will also entitle to all consequential benefits i ncluding salary. However, same will not preclude the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.