Honorary teachers v. Education Department

The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have claimed that they w ere earlier appointed as honorary teachers in different schools and thereafter p ursuant to the instruction of the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (El ementary) Department, their services were regularized by way of adjustment by th e Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar by 4(four) different orders issued on 28. 02.2001 and though they were serving accordingly, they have not been paid their salary. It is also the contention of the petitioners that for non-payment of sal ary, they earlier approached this Court in various writ petitions including WP(C ) No.1727/2002, which was disposed of directing the State respondents to conside r the case of the petitioners for entitlement of the salary and though the repor t was submitted by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Katigorah, before the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar, Cachar on 16.09.2010 to the effect that t he petitioners’ services were regularized, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department in a most arbitrary manner vi de order dated 11.02.2011 rejected the claim of the petitioners for salary. The petitioners, therefore, have filed these 4(four) writ petitions challenging the said order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary with a furt her direction to the respondent authorities to release the arrear salary in term s of the orders of regularization dated 28.02.2001. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the averment s made in these writ petitions as well as the Annexures appended thereto, has su bmitted that since the petitioners’ services were regularized on 28.02.2001 by t he Deputy Inspector of Schools pursuant to the instruction issued by the Secreta ry to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, consequent upon whi ch the petitioners have been discharging their services as assistant teachers in the respective schools of posting, the Commissioner ought not to have passed th e order rejecting the prayer for payment of salary. The learned counsel, therefo re, submits that the impugned order dated 11.02.2011 needs interference of this Court and necessary direction may also be issued to the respondents for payment of salary to the petitioners, as they are rendering their services so far. Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned standing counsel Education Department, on th e other hand, placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposit ion as well as the records produced before this Court, has submitted that the pe titioners’ entry into the services were illegal, as for appointment of the teach ers in the schools, though a process of recruitment is required to be undertaken in terms of the relevant recruitment rules, the petitioners were regularized in service by way of adjustment by the Deputy Inspector of Schools purportedly on the basis of the instruction issued by the Secretary, without undertaking any se lection process as required by law. The learned counsel further submits that the Commissioner and Secretary having regard to all the attending facts and circums tances has passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioners as they were found to be appointed dehors the rules. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel Finance Department appearing for the Treasury Officer also submits that the petitioners cannot claim salary unles s of course they are duly selected and appointed in terms of the relevant recrui tment rules. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appeari ng parties and also perused the pleadings apart from the records produced by Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel Education Department. The petitioners claim that they were initially engaged as honorary teach ers in the Government provincialised schools, which itself is not permissible un der the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 and the 1977 Ru les framed thereunder. It appears from the materials available on record that th e then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, namely, Shri B.C. Sarma, has issued 4(four) orders, all dated 28.02.2001, regularizing the services of the petitione rs by adjustment against the vacancy shown in each of the order of regularizatio n, by virtue of which, according to the petitioners, they are still serving. The said orders of regularization dated 28.02.2001 are stated to be passed on the b asis of the instruction issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department bearing letter Nos.A(1)E.573/ 99/44 dated 17.02.2001; A (1)E.538//2000/211 dated 22.02.2001; A(1)E.538/2000/212 dated 22.02.2001 and A(1 )E.538/2000/214 dated 22.02.2001. Perusal of the aforesaid letters, which is the basis for issuance of the orders dated 28.02.2001 by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, reveals that the sa id communications were issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Educ ation (Elementary) Department to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar, Cacha r, enclosing therewith the petitions submitted by the respective petitioners and intimating the D.I. of Schools that he has been directed to request him to take steps to regularize the services of the respective petitioners by way of adjust ment against the existing vacancy as proposed by the D.I. of Schools. The provisions of 1974 Act and the 1977 Rules framed thereunder require recruitment to the post of assistant teacher by initiating the process of select ion on advertisement. There is a set procedure for the purpose of selection and appointment of teachers in the provincialised schools, which was violated in imp unity at the relevant point of time by the officers of the Education Department by issuing direction for appointment by way of regularization of honorary teache rs, one of the instances is the present writ petitions. Despite issuance of such orders by some officers of the Education Department in the Secretariat in Dispu r and consequent regularization in service, no action has been initiated and tak en against those officers till date. It is really unfortunate that the teachers at the relevant point of time were appointed in different schools of Assam in th is matter, which may be one of the reasons of fairing badly in recent times in t he matriculation and higher secondary examinations, conducted by the Board of Se condary Education of Assam, by the students of the provincialised and the Govern ment schools. The authorities by not taking the required action has caused great injustice to the society. The petitioners’ appointment being dehors the rules and their entry into the services being through backdoor, they cannot as a matter of right claim tha t they should be paid from the State exchequer, only on the ground that they hav e been serving. Hence the prayer made in these writ petitions cannot be allowed. Having regard to the observation made, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Ele mentary) Department should be directed to lodge an F.I.R., within 15 days from t oday, for making necessary investigation to find out the person(s) responsible f or issuance of such direction and for making appointment in complete disregard t o the statutory rules framed for recruitment of the teachers in such schools. Ordered accordingly. The Commissioner and Secretary, Education (Elementary) Department shall every 3(three) months from the date of lodging the FIR till the investigation is complete submit a report to the Registrar General of this Court about the stage of investigation. The Director General of Police, Assam is also directed to con sider as to whether such investigation is required to be monitored by an officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police, if so, to pass necessary order accordi ngly. The Registrar General is directed to register a Misc. Case on receipt of the first report and place the same before this Court for further order. The su bsequent reports, that may be filed, shall also be placed in the said misc. case and place before this Court for orders. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid directio ns.