Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1911
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Miss Rita Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 8335 of 2009
Decided On : 10-04-2018
Manish Gowswami and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates, for the Appellant; M/s Corporate Law Group, AOR, Ms Madhu Moolchansani, AOR, D. Borakakati, M. Balashivudu, Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Dr. Krishan Singh Chanhan, AOR, Ajit Kumar Ekka and Ravi Prakash, Advocates, for the Respondents
The subsequent events and absence of contestation from the respondent influenced the Court's decision in restoring the Single Judge's order.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Appointment Dispute - Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules 1977 - 18.12.1995 - 31.12.1990 - High Court Order - Writ Petition - Enquiry Report - Writ Appeal - Self LP School - Headmaster
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a headmaster/headmistress for a school, which was donated by the appellant's father. The respondent, who was initially appointed as an assistant teacher, filed a Writ Petition seeking regularisation of his services. Subsequent legal proceedings and orders led to conflicting claims for the headmaster/headmistress position.
Finding of the Court:
The Court restored the order passed by the Single Judge, considering the subsequent events and the absence of contestation from the respondent. It was decided that the appellant would continue as headmistress if currently holding the position, and if someone else was in the role, they would continue as headmaster/headmistress.
Issues: Dispute over headmaster/headmistress appointment, legality of orders and proceedings, and subsequent events affecting the claimants' entitlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the subsequent events, including the respondent's abandonment of services and the absence of contestation from the respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the restoration of the Single Judge's order, and the appellant's continuation as headmistress, or the continuation of the current headmaster/headmistress if different from the appellant.
ORDER
Arun Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Rita Sarkar aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the high Court at Gauhati on 12.05.2003.
3. It appears that certain land was donated by the father of the appellant way back in the year 1985 for starting of the school - Pub Dwarkuchi Adarsha L.P. School. On 2.6.1987, the Managing Committee ultimately took a decision to appoint one of the members of the family of the owner of land as headmaster/headmistress of the School. The appellant-Rita Sarkar came to be appointed as head mistress of the School on 26.11.1989; however respondent no.7-Sri Satya Ranjan Acharjee was appointed as Assistant teacher on 8.7.1988. Thereafter the appellant-Rita Sarkar obtained requisite qualification and her appointment was validated by the Authorities on 2.7.1990.
4. Respondent no. 7 remained absent w.e.f. 1.12.1991. In his place Sh. Sanjam Bhomic was appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 8.4.1992. Same position continued for quite some time; ultimately respondent no.7 was dismissed vide Resolution dated 13.2.1994, passed by the managing committee of the School, from the post of Assistant Teacher.
5. However, there was sanction of grant-in-aid vide order dated 18.12.1995 as per the order passed by the Bodo Autonomous Council and certain riders were put of possessing minimum qualification on/or before 31.12.1990. It was claimed that the appellant was qualified to be appointed as head master of the said school in terms of the conditions imposed by the Assam Elementary Education (provincialisation) Rules 1977.
6. Respondent no.7 preferred a Writ Petition bearing Civil Rule No. 2261 of 1995 before the High Court at Gauhati, praying for regularisation of his services. High Court vide its order dated 19.11.1996 disposed of the writ petition observing that his services were discontinued w.e.f. 15.2.1994 and permitted to file representation.
7. Thereafter as per the order passed by the High Court, representation was filed on 18.1.1997 by respondent no.7 to the competent authority and the competent authority directed his reinstatement as first teacher of the School. The order passed by the competent authority on 18.1.1997 was questioned by the appellant by filing Writ Petition being Civil Rule No. 831 of 1997 and by way of interim order functioning of the appellant as head mistress was protected. Ultimately the respondent authorities vide communication dated 19.12.1997 approved the appointment of respondent no. 7 as head master of the said School. As there were two claimants to the post of headmaster of the said school, the competent authority vide letter dated 30.12.1997 directed the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Rangia to make an enquiry with respect to rival claims and ascertain the facts. The order passed in favour of respondent no. 7 on 19.12.1992 was kept in abeyance. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and a report dated 18.3.1998 was submitted. The appellant was provisionally allowed to function as headmaster of the School and the appointment of respondent no. 7 was withdrawn in terms of the letter dated 29.5.1998. Said order passed against respondent no. 7 was questioned by him by way of filing writ petition being Civil Rule No. 3660 of 1998 before the High Court.
8. Both the writ applications filed by respondent no. 7 as well as by the appellant were heard together by the learned Single Judge and vide common judgment and order dated 10.8.1999 dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no. 7 and the petition filed by the appellant was disposed of as effect of order dated 18.1.1997 stood wiped of in view of the subsequent action taken by the Authority on 22.6.1998.
9. The respondent no.7 filed Writ Appeal No. 356 of 1999 as against the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge on 10.08.1999 whereby his writ petition was dismissed, the Division Bench of the High Court at Gauhati on 12.05.2003 has allowed the appeal and se
