Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Jasti Chelameswar and C.R. Sarma, JJ.
Shri Santosh Kumar Paharia and Ors.
Vs.
Smti Meghali Roy and Ors.
W.A. No. 387 of 2006
Decided On: 20.01.2009
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: D.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv., S. Jahan, S. Bora and D.P. Mandal, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: V.M. Thomas, GA and D. Das, SC, BTC
The legality of official acts is presumed in the absence of evidence of illegality or irregularity.
Headnote:
Appointment - Bodoland Autonomous Council Act, 1993 - Section 3, 4, 35, 24 - The judgment discusses the appointment of Assistant Teachers in ME schools in Kokrajhar district under the Bodoland Autonomous Council Act, 1993. It highlights the powers of the General Council and Executive Council, the role of the Advisory Board, and the process of selection and appointment of candidates. The court emphasizes that the Advisory Board has no role in the selection process and that the legality of official acts is presumed in the absence of evidence of illegality or irregularity.
Fact of the Case:
The writ Petitioners challenged the appointment of the Appellants as Assistant Teachers in ME schools in Kokrajhar district under the Bodoland Autonomous Council Act, 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside, allowing the appeal without costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment process of the Appellants as Assistant Teachers was vitiated by the replacement of the Advisory Board and the lack of a further selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Advisory Board has no role in the selection process and that the legality of official acts is presumed in the absence of evidence of illegality or irregularity.
Final Decision: The judgment under appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs.
J. Chelameswar, C.J.
1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 1.6.2006 in WP(C) No. 4080/1999 the Respondents Nos. 7 to 27 therein preferred the present appeal.
2. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 herein were the writ Petitioners in the above mentioned writ petition.
3. By the said writ petition the writ Petitioners challenged the appointment of the Appellants herein as Assistant Teachers in the various ME schools in Kokrajhar district.
4. Each one of the Appellants herein received an order of appointment from the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar District dated 29.6.1999. Copies of such appointment orders are filed as annexures in the present appeal.
5. In the year 1993 the State of Assam passed an enactment called the Bodoland Autonomous Council Act, 1993. Under Section 3 of the said Act an Autonomous Council, to be called the Bodoland Autonomous Council, within the State of Assam is created. The area of operation of such Council is required to extend to such areas, as may be specified by the Govt. of Assam by notification in the official gazette. Admittedly the entire Kokrajhar district was notified to be an area falling within the jurisdiction of the above mentioned Autonomous Council. Such an Autonomous Council is to have a General Council and an Executive Council constituted under Section 4 and 35 respectively of the said Act. Under Section 24 of the Act the General Council, referred to above, is invested with the executive powers relating to the various enumerated subjects numbering 38 within the area of operation entrusted to the Autonomous Council. One of the enumerated subjects is education. Though the exact nature of the contours of the executive powers entrusted to the General Council are not specified in the Act we need not embark upon such an enquiry as that is not the issue in the present writ petition.
6. The case of the writ Petitioners/Respondents herein is that the official Respondents issued an advertisement for filling up of posts of Assistant Teachers. The cases of the writ Petitioners as well as the present Appellants were considered in the interview conducted for the purpose. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal recorded at Para 3 as follows:
The Advisory Board also published a list of selected candidates in the third week of May 99 in which the names of the Petitioners appeared at SL. No. 3, 19, 18, 5, 14 and 7 respectively.
Obviously it means that the writ Petitioners admitted of a process of selection but claim that their names also figured in the select list as mentioned above.
It is the further case of the Petitioners, as recorded by the learned Judge, on 27.6.1999 a further select list empanelling 16 candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers was published. The list of 16 candidates consists of some of the candidates whose names were found in the first select list, referred to earlier and it also contains some new names but the names of the Petitioners were excluded. In this regard the learned Judge at para 3 of the judgment recorded as follows:
3. ...According to the Petitioners, on 27.6.1999, the new Advisory Board for Kokrajhar published a select list empanelling 16 persons for appointment as Assistant Teachers against the additional posts under Operation Black Board Scheme in the M.E. Schools. Though the list contained the names of some of the candidates selected earlier, there were fresh entrants as well. However, the names of the Petitioners were excluded.
7. The entire argument in the writ petition and the conclusions reached by the learned Judge hinge upon the fact that the "Advisory Board", which was supposed to make recommendation to the General Council on the basis of the select list prepared by the Interview Board, came to be dissolved on 2.5.1999 and a fresh Advisory Board came to be constituted on 25.6.1999. Such a fresh Advisory Board recommended as list of the candidates to be appointed as Asstt Teachers without conducting any fresh selection process and, therefore, th
