SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
ABU KHAYER S.K. S/O LATE FULBAR ALI S.K. – Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
WP (C) No. 5702 of 2021
Decided On : 09-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.R. KHANDAKAR.

Point of Law : Section 19 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, no school shall be established, or recognized, under Section 18 unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified in the Schedule.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 – Section 3(1)(xi) – Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Section 19, 2(zc), 25 – Writ of mandamus – Seniority – Case of petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Dakhin Bisandai M.E. School by School Managing Committee in District of Dhubri, Assam and he joined service as Assistant Teacher in said School - Section 19 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, no school shall be established, or recognized, under Section 18 unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified in the Schedule (Para 12).

Findings of the Court :

Taking into consideration that petitioner is senior Language Teacher, action of not recommending petitioner by District Scrutiny Committee which was approved by State Level Scrutiny Committee on ground that petitioner was Head Master and as such not eligible for provincialization due to non-availability of required enrollment is on face of illegal and arbitrary – Consequently, this Court therefore, interferes with order of provincialization made in favour of Respondent thereby setting aside same and further directs respondent authorities to consider case of petitioner for provincialization as a Language Teacher in Dakhin Bisandai M.E. School – Said exercise may be completed at earliest and not later from of certified copy of this order is served upon the Respondent No. 2.

Result : Writ petition disposed of

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.R. Khandakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Also heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee, Dhubri, the select list dated 04.02.2021 insofar as the private respondent No. 6 has been recommended and his service has been provincialized as a Language Tutor of Dakhin Bisandai M.E. School and for a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to appoint and provincialize the service of the petitioner as Language Teacher/Tutor of Dakhin Bisandai M.E. School on the basis of seniority under the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short “The Act of 2017”).

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed on 12.12.1985 as an Assistant Teacher in Dakhin Bisandai M.E. School by the School Managing Committee in the District of Dhubri, Assam and he joined the service on 01.01.1986 as Assistant Teacher in the said School. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on 27.10.1997 as Head Master of the said School by the School Managing Committee and till date the petitioner has been serving as the Head Master of the said School without any break. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 6 was appointed on 28.03.2010 as an Assistant Teacher in Dakhin Bisandai M.E. School by the School Managing Committee and he joined his service on 01.04.2010. At this stage, before further proceeding on the adjudication of the disputes, it would be relevant to refer to Section 2(za) of the Act of 2017 which defines “Venture M.E. School.” As the said definition is relevant for the purpose of instant dispute, the said definition is reproduced herein below:

    “2(za). Venture ME School” including “Venture ME Madrassa” means an Upper-Primary School imparting education from class VI up to class VIII and established by the people of the locality prior to 1.1.2006 which has received recognition from the competent authority on or before 01.01.2006 and captured in the DISE Code up to 2009-10 and whereof the services of the teachers have not been provincialised under any Act enacted by the State legislature so far:

Provided that the DISE Code shall have to be issued on or before 2009-10 and DISE Code issued thereafter shall not be considered for the purpose of provincialisation of services of any employee of the institution.”

4. A reading of the said definition would show that the “Venture M.E. School” including “Venture M.E. Madrassa” means an Upper Primary School imparting education from Class VI up to Class VIII and established by the people of the locality prior to 01.01.2006 which has received recognition from the competent authority on or before 01.01.2006 and captured in the DISE Code up to 2009-10 and whereof the services of the teachers have not been provincialized under any Act enacted by the State legislature so far. The proviso to the said definition stipulates that the DISE Code shall have to be issued on or before 2009- 10 and the DISE Code issued thereafter shall not be considered for the purpose of provincialisation of services of any employee of the institution. The proviso therefore, specifically limits the provincialization of service of any employee of any institution in respect to Venture M.E. School which pertains to the DISE Code issued on or before 2009-10 and any DISE Code issued thereafter cannot be considered for the purpose of provincialisation of services of any employee of the said institution.

5. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take note that the petitioner in his writ petition had further stated that Dakhin Bisandai M.E. School has a DISE Code for the year 2009-10 and the School Code Number is 18020102 and the petitioner’s name appeared

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top