Judgment · High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. P.N. Goswam i, learned standing counsel Education Department appearing for the respondent No s.1, 2 and 4; Ms. B. Dutta, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent N o.3 and Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 and 8. Other respondents are not represented despite service. The petitioners, who admittedly are teachers of Lakshirbond High Madrass a and whose services have been provincialised in the graduate scale of pay, by t he present petition have challenged the communication dated 07.06.2010 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, whereby and whereunder the Heads of insti tutions of Hailakandi district have been directed not to fill up any post in the Higher Secondary Schools by the in service teachers of Secondary Schools includ ing other departmental employees; the resolutions dated 11.07.2010 and 19.12.201 0 of the Management Committee of the said Madrassa resolving to appoint the resp ondent Nos.7 and 8 as subject teachers in the Higher Secondary section of the sa id Madrassa and the consequential order of appointment dated 19.12.2010.

It has been contended by the petitioners that though their services were provincialised as assistant teacher in the graduate scale of pay in the Seconda ry section of the said Madrassa and accordingly they are performing their duties , since they were allowed to perform their duties as subject teachers in History and Economics also in the Higher Secondary section of the said Madrassa, the au thority ought to have forwarded the names of the petitioners for the purpose of consideration for provincialisation of their services as subject teachers in the Higher Secondary section. The petitioners, therefore, claim a right for conside ration of provincialisation in the Higher Secondary section as subject teachers in History and Economics. It has also been contended that the Management Committ ee of the said Madrassa vide resolution dated 11.07.2010 and 19.12.2010 resolved to appoint the respondent Nos.7 and 8 as subject teachers in those subjects and accordingly the orders of appointment dated 19.12.2010 were issued, thereby dep riving the petitioners from consideration of their cases for provincialisation a s subject teachers.

The petitioners, therefore, have filed the petition with the relief as claimed. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the pet itioners’ services were provincialised as assistant teacher in the graduate scal e of pay in the High Madrassa i.e. in the secondary level, since a decision has been taken by the Government of Assam for provincialisation of teaching and non- teaching staff of the Higher Secondary level of the said Madrassa, the petitione rs’ cases are required to be considered for provincialisation as subject teacher in the Higher Secondary level, as they have been discharging the duties of the subject teachers in History and Economics in the Higher Secondary level. It has also been submitted that though earlier they were allowed to discharge their dut ies as subject teachers, they, however, have been debarred from discharging such duties by the Management Committee after engagement of the respondent Nos.7 and 8 in that capacity.

The learned standing counsel Education Department as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 and 8, on the other hand, have submi tted that the petitioners’ services have already been provincialised as assistan t teacher in the graduate scale of pay in Secondary level and therefore, they ca nnot claim that their services are also to be regularized in the Higher Secondar y level. It has also been submitted that in fact the Management Committee of the Madrassa ought not to have allowed the petitioners to function as the subject t eachers in the Higher Secondary level as their services were regularized as assi stant teachers in the graduate scale of pay in the secondary level, for which th e Inspector of Schools had to issue the communication dated 07.06.2010. The lear ned standing counsel Education Department further submits that since the respond ent Nos.7 and 8 have been engaged by the Management Committee as subject teacher s and their names and particulars have been forwarded to the authority for the p urpose of consideration for provincialisation, their cases would be considered s ubject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the Assam Venture Educatio nal Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ services were regularized by way of provincialisation as assistant teacher in the graduate scale of pay in th e secondary level of the aforesaid Madrassa. Their services having already been regularized by way of provincialisation, they cannot claim provincialisation as the subject teachers in the secondary level contending that they have been servi ng as subject teachers in the Higher Secondary section of the said Madrassa, whi ch section has not been provincialised. The petitioners being the Government ser vants, by virtue of provincialisation, ought not to have been allowed to perform the duties as subject teachers in the Higher Secondary level by the Management Committee of the said school, which has the effect of depriving the students of the said school in the secondary level from the benefit of the services of the p etitioners for which their services were provincialised.