Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
MEENAKSHI SINGHA W/O R.K. GAUTAM SINGH – Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
WP (C) No. 2168 of 2019
Decided On : 02-06-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Sections 6 and 6A – Learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, representing respondent, learned Government Advocate, representing respondent, learned counsel representing respondent None appears on call for respondent, upon whom vide order, notice has been deemed to be duly served - If Section 6 of the General Clauses Act had been applied, no doubt, this complaint against the two accused for the offence punishable under R. 132A of the D.I.Rs. could have been instituted even after the repeal of that rule (Para 28).
Findings of the Court : Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that merely by participation in the selection process, any indefeasible right has accrued in favour of petitioner – It is contended that after participating in selection process, some of petitioners in W.P. were appointed as PGT in Cachar District – However, before the petitioner could be appointed, the OM was issued – This writ petition was filed Rules was notified in Official Gazette of the State – However, Clause 10(5) of 2018 Rules are not under challenge –Petitioner does not have the eligibility criteria to be appointed as Post Graduate Teacher in Chemistry – Thus, no case has been made out by petitioner to be entitled to any relief as prayed for
Result : Writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, representing respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. P. Saikia, learned Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 4 and Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel representing respondent no. 6. None appears on call for the respondent no. 5, upon whom vide order dated 26.09.2019, notice has been deemed to be duly served.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she is having educational qualification of M.Sc. (Chemistry), B.Ed., and had also cleared Teacher Eligibility Test Examination (TET for short). Accordingly, it is claimed that the petitioner has the requisite eligibility to be appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT for short). By an OM dated 19.02.2014, issued by the Secondary Education Department, it was provided, amongst others, in Clause 7 (vii) that “No candidate is allowed to apply in the Bengali / Hindi medium schools if the candidate does not have MIL in Bengali and Hindi in the HSLC examination as the case may be. Only candidates having Bengali and Hindi are allowed for applying in the schools in Bengali and Hindi medium schools which are imparting teaching in Bengali or Hindi exclusively.” To assail the said clause of the OM dated 19.02.2014, the petitioner and others had preferred a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. (C) 3403/2014, and this Court, by order dated 23.07.2014, in the interim, provided that “Irrespective of pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners may be allowed to offer their candidatures in response to the impugned advertisement.” Thereafter, by order dated 30.07.2014, passed in M.C. 2123/2014 [in W.P. (C) 3403/2014], clarified as follows – “Irrespective of pendency of the writ petition and the impugned office memorandum dated 19.02.2014, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to offer their candidature in response to the impugned advertisement, which might be issued in due course.” Consequently, in view of the said orders of this Court, the respondent authorities, by way of a WT message dated 08.08.2014, directed the Inspector of Schools, CDC, Silchar as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar and Chairman, District Level Approval Authority to allow all the 10 (ten) petitioners in W.P. (C) 3403/2014, including the petitioner of this case, to participate in the interview. Pursuant to the selection process, one out of the ten petitioners in W.P. (C) 3403/2014 was appointed as PGT by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam vide order dated 17.11.2014 and one more out of ten petitioners was appointed as PGT by the same authority vide order dated 01.12.2014 respectively.
3. It is the projected case of the petitioners that during the pendency of W.P. (C) 3403/2014, another Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016 was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, amongst others, which contained Clause no. 7(vii), containing provisions that was similar to OM dated 19.02.2014, which was under challenge in W.P. (C) 4609/2016. In the said clause, it was provided that ” No candidate is allowed to apply in the Bengali/ Hindi/ Assamese medium schools if the candidate does not have MIL in Bengali, Hindi and Assamese respectively in the HSLC Examination as the case may be. Only candidates having Bengali, Hindi and Assamese as MIL in HSLC Examination are allowed for applying in the schools which are imparting education in Bengali, Hindi and Assamese medium exclusively.” Aggrieved by the said OM dated 14.07.2016, the petitioner along with six other persons had assailed the same by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. (C) 4609/2016 and this Court by order dated 05.08.2016, provided that “Having regard to the previous office memorandum dated 19.02.2014 and the order passed by this Court on 23.07.2014 in W.P. (C) 3403/2
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
