This High Court · 2009

Background facts:

5. The ground for rejection of the petitioner’s case by the Committee, as h as been submitted, on behalf of the respondents, is that the Committee did not f ind the original detailed particulars of the petitioner. 6. The submissions, made on behalf of the respondents, have been vehemently resisted, on behalf of the petitioner, by contending that the petitioner appear ed before the Committee along with the Headmaster of the school and that all rel evant documents were produced by the petitioner. While considering the above findings of the Committee as well as the cla 7. im of the petitioner, it needs to be pointed out that the school, in question, w as provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assi stant Teacher on 20.04.1994. If the petitioner’s assertion is correct, he had ex isted in the school, in question, on the date of its provincialisation and if it be so, he has to be treated as a dropped teacher.

3. W.P.(C) No. 2355/2008 Background facts:

8. The Committee rejected the petitioner’s case on the ground that the peti tioner’s name did not figure in the original detailed particulars of the school, in question, which were, in terms of the advertisement, dated November, 2004 an d November, 2005, forwarded by the Headmaster of the school concerned and the In spector of Schools and that no certificate, in respect of the petitioner’s B.Sc. degree, was produced.

9. As against the above findings of the Committee, the petitioner claims th at the petitioner had appeared before the Committee along with the Headmaster of the school and all relevant documents were produced. It is also pertinent to point out that the school, in question, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assistant Teacher on 19.06.1995. If the pet itioner’s assertion is correct, he had existed in the school, in question, on th e date of its provincialisation and if it be so, he has to be treated as a dropp ed teacher.

4. W.P.(C) No. 909/2008 Background facts:

10. The petitioner’s case was rejected by the Committee on the ground that w hile two Affidavits had been filed, neither the petitioner’s name appeared in th e list, in the 1st Affidavit, nor had any reason been assigned for not showing t he petitioner’s name in the list. The 2nd Affidavit stated that the petitioner had not mentioned the date of application and no reference of the Court order wa s made by the petitioner.

11. The petitioner, however, contends that he duly appeared before the Commi ttee, along with the Headmaster of the school, and produced all relevant documen ts. It, deserves to be pointed out, in this regard, that the school, in questio n, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1991. If the petitioner’s assertion is correct, he ha d existed in the school, in question, on the date of its provincialisation and i f it be so, he has to be treated as a dropped teacher.

5. W.P.(C) No. 950/2008 Background facts:

12. The petitioners’ cases were rejected by the Committee on the ground that the original application and relevant records, in respect of petitioner No. 1, namely, Sri Deben Saikia, were not available with the Committee, and that the pe titioner No. 2, namely, Sri Subhash Chandra Deori, did not appear at all before the Screening Committeee.

13. While considering the above findings of the Committee, it needs to be po inted out that the petitioners, however, claim that they duly appeared before th e Committee and that, at the time of their appearance before the Committee, reco rds were available with the respondents. Taking into consideration the claim and counter-claim of the parties, th 14. is Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the pr esent case, it would serve the interest of justice if the Committee is directed to call the petitioners for the purpose of screening the documents, which the pe titioners may produce, so that an effective decision can be taken in the matter.

6. W.P.(C) No. 2354/2008 Background facts:

15. It is submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that the Screening Commit tee rejected the petitioner’s case on the ground that the petitioner did not app ear before the Screening Committee for verification of the petitioner’s certific ates etc.

16. The petitioner, however, contends that she appeared before the Committee along with the Headmaster of the school and produced all relevant documents. While considering the contentions of the parties, it is also worth menti 17. oning that the school, in question, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the pet itioner claims to have joined as Assistant Teacher on 09.03.1990. If the petitio ner’s assertion is correct, she had existed in the school, in question, on the d ate of its provincialisation and if it be so, she has to be treated as a dropped teacher.

7. W.P.(C) No. 3273/2008 Background facts:

18. The petitioner’s case was rejected by the Committee on the ground that h er name did not figure in the original detailed particulars of the school, in qu estion, which were, in terms of the advertisement, dated November, 2004 and Nove mber, 2005, forwarded by the Headmaster of the school concerned and the Inspecto r of Schools.

19. While considering the above findings of the Committee, it needs to be po inted out that the school, in question, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assistant Teacher on 30.12.1994. If the pet itioner’s assertion is correct, she had existed in the school, in question, on t he date of its provincialisation and if it be so, she has to be treated as a dro pped teacher.

8. W.P.(C) No. 3552/2008

21. The petitioners’ cases were rejected by the Committee on the ground that the Screening Committee did not find the original detailed particulars of petit ioner No. 1, namely, Sri Shama Charan Mushahari. Moreover, no Court order was e nclosed. The Committee rejected the case of petitioner No. 2, namely, Smti. Mad huchanda Sengupta, on the ground that her name did not figure in original detail ed particulars.

22. While considering the above findings of the Committee, it needs to be po inted out that the petitioners have contended, against the findings of the Commi ttee, by saying that they had appeared before the Committee along with the Headm aster of the school and all relevant documents were produced. It may also be po inted out, in this regard, that the school, in question, was provincialised on 0 1.08.1995 and the petitioner No. 1 claims to have joined, as Assistant Teacher, on 23.12.1994, and the petitioner No. 2 claims to have joined, as Assistant Teac her, on 24.10.1994 respectively. If the petitioners’ assertions are correct, the y had existed in the school, in question, on the date of its provincialisation a nd if it be so, they have to be treated as a dropped teachers. 9. W.P.(C) No. 4102/2008 Background facts:

23. It has been submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that the Screening Committee could not consider the petitioner’s case on the ground that the petiti oner’s detailed particulars were not available with the Committee.

24. While resisting the submissions, made on behalf of the respondents, it h as been submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner appearing be fore the Committee along with the Headmaster of the school and all relevant docu ments were produced.

25. While considering the above findings of the Committee and also the claim of the petitioner, it needs to be pointed out that the school, in question, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assist ant Teacher on 24.12.1985. If the petitioner’s assertion is correct, he had exis ted in the school, in question, on the date of its provincialisation and if it b e so, he has to be treated as a dropped teacher.

10. W.P.(C) No. 917/2008 Background facts:

26. The petitioner’s case was rejected by the Committee on the ground that t he petitioner did not appear before the Screening Committee, as was required. B ut, on the other hand, it has been submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner appeared before the Committee along with the Headmaster of the sc hool and also produced all relevant documents.

27. While considering the contentions of the parties, it also needs to be po inted out that the school, in question, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assistant Teacher on 24.02.1993. If the pet itioner’s assertion is correct, he had existed in the school, in question, on th e date of its provincialisation and if it be so, he has to be treated as a dropp ed teacher.

11. W.P.(C) No. 915/2008 Background facts:

28. It has been submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that the petitioner ’s case was rejected by the Committee on the ground that the petitioner did not appear before the Screening Committee.

29. Contrary to the findings of the Committee, the petitioner claims that he had appeared before the Committee along the Headmaster of the school and all re levant documents were produced. However, it may also be pointed out, in this re gard, that the school, in question, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the pet itioner claims to have joined as Assistant Teacher on 26.10.1993. If the petitio ner’s assertion is correct, he had existed in the school, in question, on the da te of its provincialisation and if it be so, he has to be treated as a dropped t eacher. 12. W.P.(C) No. 1331/2008 Background facts:

30. The petitioner’s case was rejected by the Committee on the ground that t he petitioner did not furnish to the Committee his date of joining in the servic e, approval thereof and certificate pertaining to his education qualification.

31. While considering the above findings of the Committee, it needs to be po inted out that the petitioner, on the contrary, claims that he appeared before t he Committee along with the Headmaster of the school and duly produced the relev ant documents. It is also worth mentioning, in this regard, that the school, in question, was provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have jo ined as Assistant Teacher on 09.01.1991. If the petitioner’s assertion is correc t, he had existed in the school, in question, on the date of its provincialisati on and if it be so, he has to be treated as a dropped teacher.

13. W.P.(C) No. 1112/2008 Background facts:

32. The petitioner’s case could not be placed before the Screening Committee for consideration on the ground, that the petitioner did not mention, in his ap plication, as to when he had applied for appointment. Moreover, the petitioner did not appear before the Screening Committee.

33. Resisting the contentions of the respondents, it has been submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner appeared before the said Committee , on 29.11.2005, and all the documents of the petitioners, regarding the petitio ner’s claim, were examined by the Committee.

34. While considering the above findings of the Committee as well as the cla im of the petitioner, it needs to be pointed out that the school, in question, w as provincialised on 01.08.1995 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assi stant Teacher on 28.04.1988. If the petitioner’s assertion is correct, he had ex isted in the school, in question, on the date of its provincialisation and if it be so, he has to be treated as a dropped teacher.

14. W.P.(C) No. 1317/2008 Background facts:

35. The petitioners’ cases were rejected by the Committee on the grounds tha t (1) the petitioner No. 1, namely, Indreswar Gogoi, was second Hindi teacher, ( 2) joining report doubtful, and (3) the detail particulars of the petitioner No. 2, namely, Tilak Chandra Lahan, were not available.

36. It has been submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, that they duly appe ared before the Screening Committee, on 28.11.2005, and produced all relevant do cuments.

37. While considering the above findings of the Committee as well as the cla ims of the petitioner, it also needs to be pointed out that the school, in quest ion, was provincialised on 20.03.1996, and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claim to have joined as Assistant Teacher and second Hindi teacher, respectively, on 13.0 9.1994. If the petitioners’ assertions are correct, they had existed in the scho ol, in question, on the date of its provincialisation and if it be so, they have to be treated as a dropped teachers.

15. W.P.(C) No. 2029/2008 Background facts:

38. The petitioner’s case was rejected by the Committee on the ground that ( 1) documents, pertaining to the petitioner’s educational qualifications, were no t available, (2) date of joining of the petitioner in service as well as the dat e of Managing Committee’s resolution, approving the petitioner’s appointment wer e not available, and (3) detailed particulars of the petitioner were not availab le.

39. While considering the above findings of the Committee, it needs to be po inted out that the school, in question, was provincialised on 26.03.1996 and the petitioner claims to have joined as Assistant Teacher on 01.12.1994. If the pet itioner’s assertion is correct, she had existed in the school, in question, on t he date of its provincialisation and if it be so, she has to be treated as a dro pped teacher.

40. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at length, and in the light of the facts and attending circumstances of the cases, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered the view that in order to resolve the controver sy and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the Committ ee aforementioned to re-examine the petitioners’ case for the purpose of determi ning as to what benefits, if any, the petitioners can have in the fact situation of the present case.

41. In view of the above, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, is hereby directed to constitute, in terms of the judgment and order, dated 25-08- 2003, passed in Civil Rule No. 571/1998 and 28 other similar cases, a High Power Committee, which shall, upon causing service of notice on the petitioners, exam ine the petitioners’ cases in the light of the relevant Government Policy and th e law contained in that behalf.

42. While examining the cases of the petitioners, the Committee shall, among st others, find out whether the petitioners’ appointment, if any, stood, in term s of the relevant policy and law, approved by competent authority. Whether the s tudent-teacher ratio of 40:01 required the sanction of the posts, which the peti tioners claim to have been holding, and whether the petitioners had satisfied th e necessary eligibility criteria at the time when the provincialisation of the r espective school(s) took place. It is further directed that the whole exercise, directed hereinbefore, shall be completed within a period of six months from th e date on which a copy of this order is received by the Chief Secretary to the G overnment of Assam. It is further made clear that this order has been passed on account of t 43. he fact that the petitioners’ claim, in some of the cases, is that they have req uisite documents, in original, and it would be, in the considered view of this C ourt, highly unjust if the petitioners are denied an opportunity of producing th eir requisite documents, in original, before the Committee concerned, so that th eir cases can be effectively examined and disposed of.

44. Before parting with this writ petition, it is, however, made clear that these directions are given considering the peculiarity of facts and circumstance s of these cases and shall, therefore, not be treated as precedent.

45. ll stand disposed of. With the above observations and directions, all these writ petitions sha