Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
R.M. Chhaya, Soumitra Saikia, JJ.
Dipali Barman, Wife of Dadhi Barman – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Secondary Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 211 of 2019
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Islam, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. R. Mazumdar, Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department.
Headnote:
Teachers - Services Were Terminated - It is case of appellant that she was terminated abruptly by an order passed by Inspector of Schools, without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and directed Principal of Mugdi Milan H.S. School not to allow appellant and other similarly situated terminated teachers to continue in service - Appellant along with other similarly situated teachers, whose services were terminated, filed writ petitions before this Court.
Finding of the Court :
From averments in counter affidavit filed by DSE, Assam, it is clear that show-cause-notices issued was cancelled and was not taken to their logical conclusion - Thereafter impugned termination order was abruptly issued against petitioners by Inspector of Schools - Therefore it is apparent that affected persons did not have any opportunity to defend their cause and therefore their termination was not through a legally permitted process - Thus, termination order was held to be passed not through a legally permitted process - It is pertinent to note that Inspector of Schools, vide communication also informed Principal of School in which appellant was serving that petitioner, i.e. appellant and other similarly situated persons, be again taken in service and were permitted to resume their duties to complete process of de-novo proceedings as held by this Court and admittedly thereafter appellant was permitted to resume her duties - Considering aforesaid, this Court is of opinion that claim raised by appellant before learned Single Judge has been wrongly declined - Learned Single Judge has also committed an error in coming to conclusion that appellant had accepted order - Impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside - Director of Secondary Education, is directed to take necessary steps to release arrears of salary of appellant and process same for period and after quantifying same, make such payment of arrears of salary to appellant within a period of 3(three) months from date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment & order.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R.M. Chhaya, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment & order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No.7032/2015 filed by the appellant, the original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal.
2. The following facts emerge from the record of this appeal. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Lachima High Madrassa of Nalbari District pursuant to the selection process initiated in the year 1996. It is the case of the appellant that she was selected and recommended for appointment by the District Level Selection Board of Nalbari District with an order dated 22.10.1998 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari. It is also the case of the appellant that she was given all consequential benefits including Group Insurance, GPF, annual increments as per ROP, 1996 in 2010 as well as financial up-gradation under ACPS, which is also reflected in her Service Book.
3. As the record unfolds, some candidates, who were not selected in the said recruitment process, preferred a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.3949/2001 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of with an order dated 20.03.2007 giving liberty to the State Government to decide on course of action on the errant officials as well as on the illegal appointees.
4. It is the case of the appellant that she was terminated abruptly on 21.05.2012 by an order passed by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and directed the Principal of Mugdi Milan H.S. School not to allow the appellant and other similarly situated terminated teachers to continue in service after 21.05.2012. The appellant along with other similarly situated teachers, whose services were terminated, filed writ petitions before this Court and by an order dated 01.08.2013, the termination orders came to be quashed and set aside predominantly on the ground that the affected persons did not have opportunity to defend their cause. According to the appellant, she was one of the petitioners in WP(C) No.3117/2012.
5. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 01.08.2013 directed the State authorities to take final decision in the matter and to pass a speaking order following due process of law by resorting to de-novo proceedings after issuing show cause notice and after considering the stand taken by the appellant and other similarly situated persons. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari issued a notice dated 18.01.2014 directing the appellant to resume her duty in the School concerned so as to complete the process of de-novo proceeding. Accordingly, the appellant resumed her duties on the very same day.
6. Facts indicate that the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari issued a show cause notice dated 20.03.2014, whereby the appellant was asked to show cause why her appointment should not be declared to be illegal and void and why her services should not be terminated. The appellant gave her reply to the said show cause notice on 04.04.2014. After the de-novo enquiry, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari submitted his report to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam with a communication dated 30.09.2014, wherein the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari stated that on being satisfied with the reply of show cause notice and after going through the different orders passed by this Court, he is of the opinion to cancel the order of termination dated 21.05.2012 and also recommended that the appellant and other similarly situated persons be continued in service with all consequential benefits, keeping in view the legitimate claims of the appointees. It appears from the record that the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari, on resumption of duty by the appellant, granted current salary with an order dated 24.03.2015, however, denied the salary from 21.05.2012
