Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 637
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J.
On the death of Thuleswar Das his legal heirs - Md. Jamaluddin Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others - Respondents
RSA 71 of 2017
Decided On : 19-07-2017
For the Appellant : Ms. S.G. Baruah
For the Respondents: Ms. S. Konwar
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the establishment and recognition of Teteliguri M.E. School, the appointment of headmasters, and the involvement of the defendant/respondent No. 6 with the institution from the beginning.
Headnote:
Declaration - Teteliguri M.E. School Dispute - 1986, 65/68 No. Grant - The court discussed the establishment and recognition of Teteliguri M.E. School, the appointment of headmasters, financial assistance, and the dispute over the school's location and recognition.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants regarding the recognition and approval of Teteliguri M.E. School. The defendants contested the suit, and the trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim of the defendant/respondent No. 6.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the findings of the trial court, concluding that the Teteliguri M.E. School under defendants/respondents No. 5 and 6 was established in 1986 and approved and recognized by the Government of Assam.
Issues: The issues included the cause of action, necessary party, establishment and recognition of the schools, locus standi right of the plaintiff, entitlement to decree and relief, and the nature of the breakaway school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on documentary evidence and witness testimonies to determine the establishment and recognition of the schools, the appointment of headmasters, and the involvement of the defendant/respondent No. 6 with the institution from the beginning.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, affirming the decision of the lower courts.
Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Konwar, the learned Standing Counsel for Elementary Education.
2. The present plaintiff/appellant preferred Title Suit No. 30/2012 for declaration and injunction against the defendants/respondents. It is with respect to a declaration sought for by the plaintiff/appellant that the Teteliguri M.E. School 65/68 No. Grant is the only recognised and the Government approved school. The facts pleaded in the plaint is that in the year 1985 Teteliguri M.E. School was established at village Dongibil. The defendant/respondent No. 6 was the Headmaster and few other teachers were appointed in the school. After establishment of the school, the government i.e. defendant/respondent No. 1 granted temporary permission to run the school by putting certain criteria with regard to appointment of the headmaster. The plaintiff/appellant was appointed in place of the defendant/respondent No. 6 who was the senior most founder teacher of the school. The said school was established in the compound of 449, Solmari L.P. School and since then the school had been running till 2004. Due to flood, the same was shifted to Teteliguri Idgah for 2 (two) years. Thereafter, the school was again shifted to the land of Najibur Rahman in the month of February, 2009. The school thereafter was finally established in the 65/68 No. Grant village covered by Dag No. 200, Periodic Patta No. 3. The said school has been receiving financial assistance from Assam Sarba Siksha through Assam Gramin Vikas Bank. The defendant/respondent No. 4 on 13.08.2010 submitted one report showing that in addition to the school of the plaintiff/appellant there was another breakaway school. The plaintiff/appellant was appointed as the headmaster of the said school on 15.12.2009. The defendant/respondent No. 6 in collusion with the defendants/respondents No. 3 and 4 tried to divert the financial assistance given to the plaintiff/appellant school to the newly established breakaway school. On the basis of a writ petition a direction was given to enquire the matter by the defendant/respondent No. 2 who reported that both the schools were running without fulfilling the norms for providing financial assistance and as such, no financial assistance could be given to the said schools. However, a financial assistance was released to the school in which defendant/respondent No. 6 was working as the headmaster. It is the fact pleaded further in the plaint that the defendant/respondent No. 6 was serving the school of the plaintiff/appellant till the year 2004 whereafter the defendant/respondent No. 6 started a new school in the name of Teteliguri M.E. School along with some other teachers and constituted a committee headed by defendant/respondent No. 6. On 27.03.2010, the defendant/respondent No. 6 and other teachers agreed to continue their services in the school in which the plaintiff/appellant was working i.e. the school standing on the land covered under Grant No. 65/68. However, the defendant/respondent No. 6 and other teachers failed to join and accordingly, running the breakaway school and refused to return the register and documents taken by the defendant/respondent No. 6. Accordingly, the dispute was agitated before the Gauhati High Court vide Writ Petition (C) No. 522/2012 by the plaintiff/appellant and the High Court directed the parties to establish their right in a regularly instituted civil suit. Accordingly, the suit has been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff/appellant school be declared as original and entitled to get financial benefits payable to the school with a further prayer of permanent injunction.
3. The defendants/respondents No. 5 and 6 contested the suit by filing written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the Teteliguri M.E. School at Dongibil was established in the year 1986 and the appointment of the plaintiff/appellant approved provisionally by the authority. The said order of
