Charaibahi Higher Secondary School v. Education Department

I have heard Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner l to the Higher Secondary. 2. s and Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioners in short is that whereas the petitioners No. 1 to 7 are the subject teachers of the School, the petitioner N o. 8 is the Upper Division Assistant thereof. This academic institution which in itially was a High School was along with other similarly placed establishments/i nstitutions permitted to start Higher Secondary Classes vide official communicat ion No. PC/SEC/113/93/121 dated 21/8/1993 of the Director of Secondary Education , Assam. In the list annexed to the follow up letter PC/SEC/219/93/68 dated 29/7 /1994 addressed to the Secretary, Assam Higher Secondary Education Council (here after referred to as the Council), the name of the petitioners’ school appeared at Sl. No. 90. However, mistakenly though the school imparted education in the C ommerce stream, it was recorded therein as the Arts Stream. This was so inspite of a report by the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat District Circle, Jorhat, followi ng her inspection of the said school in which it was clearly mentioned that the Higher Secondary section thereof had been in the Commerce stream had been starte d in the year 1992. To accommodate the incumbents of the upgraded Higher Seconda ry Schools as above, the Education (Planning) Department, Government of Assam, s anctioned posts vide letter No. PMA-282/92/126 dated 29/2/1996. Inspite of the u pgradation of their school, in view of the error in the discipline of study as r ecorded the petitioners’ school was left out and the posts sanctioned and earmar ked for it were not released. Resultantly, the petitioners were also denied thei r consequential service entitlements w.e.f. 7/9/1994 though available to others. A number of representations were submitted.

4. In the meantime, however, the mistake having been detected, by h is letter dated 16/3/1996, (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), the officer on Spe cial Duty in the Education Department drew the attention of the Director of Seco ndary Education, Assam, to the said effect with a request to the latter to issue formal proposal to rectify the same. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam , by his letter No. PC/Sec/113/93/224 dated 25/3/1996 (Annexure 8 to the writ pe tition) requested the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Edu cation Department, for upgradation of the petitioner’s school with commerce stre am in place of Arts. In the said letter, the staff pattern of the school was als o indicated. It was thereafter that by official communication No. B(3)S.399/Pt.v /80 dated 8/10/1998 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Educatio n Department, 10 posts were released in favour of the petitioner’s school, this time indicating it to be an institution of commerce stream of study. This letter has a clear mention of the communication No. PMA.282/92/126 dated 29/2/1996 whe reby posts for all such upgraded Higher Secondary Schools had been released by t he Government to accommodate the existing serving teachers. As inspite thereof, the petitioners have been denied their service allowances for the period 29/2/19 96 to 6/4/1999 they are before this Court for redressal of their grievances. The above statements have remained unrebutted in absence of any affidavit by the re spondents. Mr. Sarkar, has argued that in the facts and circumstances of th 5. e case, it is a fit case where an appropriate writ ought to be issued to the res pondents to release the petitioner’s pay and allowances for the aforementioned p eriod. As the petitioner’s have been rendering their services without any break and the mistake which has resulted in the denial of their service entitlements c annot in any view of the matter be on that count, the inaction of the state resp ondents in providing them their pay and allowances for the aforementioned period is grossly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust, he urged.

6. respondents. Mr. Goswami has sought for some time to project the stand of the Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid 7. eration of the pleaded facts and the documents available on record, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where this proceeding ought to be closed w ith a direction to the State respondents more particularly the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (S) Department to cause ne cessary steps to be taken to examine the grievances of the petitioners and to ta ke necessary steps for redressal thereof. Ordered accordingly. 8. From the materials on record, it prima facie appears that the co nfusion resulting in the stalemate had been generated in the office of the respo ndent authorities and that the petitioners cannot be held responsible therefor. As the school of the petitioners along with other institutions similarly situate d have been granted the upgradation to the Higher Secondary level, they should n ot be made to suffer for the wrong committed by the respondent authorities. That the error is not on account of the petitioners looks apparent from the communic ations dated 16/3/1996 and 25/3/1996 (Annexure 7 and 8 of the petition). Be that as it may, this Court, for obvious reasons refrains from further dilating on th e issue. Needless to say, the process as intended to be undertaken by the respon dents ought to be initiated and completed without undue delay. In that view of t he matter, it is ordered that the aforementioned State authority entrusted with the task would complete the exercise ordered within a period of three months fro m the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is left to the authori ty, if it deems proper, to associate the petitioners in the process. The decisio n taken should also be communicated to them in writing. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.