Point of Law: Merely writing something on file does not amount to an order.

JUDGMENT :

These two writ petitions have been instituted by the same petitioner. While the first writ petition being WP(C) No. 1651/2015 was filed mainly challenging the action of provincialisation of the service of the respondent no. 8 as Junior Assistant in the Tarinipur High School in the district of Cachar, the second writ petition being WP(C) No. 2428/2016 was filed challenging an order of termination of the petitioner from her services.

2. Before going to the issues, which have arisen for consideration, the facts of the case in brief may be stated as follows.

3. The Tarinipur High School (hereinafter the School) was established in the year 1959 and had got recognition on 01.01.1990. The petitioner claims that he was possessing all the requisite qualifications and was appointed as LDA in the School vide an order dated 28.02.1996 issued by the Managing Committee after the resolution. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner claims to have joined the School as LDA (Junior Assistant) on 01.03.1996 which was also approved by the Inspector of Schools, Cachar on 31.03.1997. The School, it may be mentioned was at a venture stage at that time.

4. The petitioner has stated that one Jalal Uddin was working from prior point of time as an LDA and to assist him that the petitioner was appointed. However, the said Jalal Uddin had passed away on 26.12.2007 whereafter the respondent No. 8, who was the wife of Jalal Uddin was appointed on 04.02.2008 vide a resolution. The petitioner claims that the respondent No. 8 was more than 41 years of age at that time and was only a Matriculate.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that after the enactment of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, on 03.10.2012, the Head Master of the School had sent the particulars of various teaching and non-teaching staff to get the benefit of provincialisation. The said chart also contained the name of the respondent No. 8 which itself records that she was 47 years of age and had joined the School on 04.02.2008 with qualification as HSLC. Since the name of the petitioner was left out, on the same date i.e. 03.10.2012, another proposal of excess employees was forwarded by the Head Master containing the name of the petitioner whose details were also given. The petitioner was shown to be working as Junior Assistant-II. Though in the qualification column, the petitioner has been stated to be an HSLC passed candidate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same entry is apparently an inadvertent error inasmuch as the petitioner has passed her Higher Secondary Examination, the testimony of which is also annexed with the writ petition.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that since the Government website did not figure her name, she submitted representations for review. However, in the impugned order of provincialisation dated 20.08.2013, the name of the petitioner was not present whereas the same contained the name of the respondent No. 8 as Junior Assistant. The petitioner claims to have submitted representations including one dated 11.02.2015 whereafter the first writ petition WP(C) No. 1651/2015 was filed.

7. In the first writ petition, WP(C) No. 1651/2015, notice of motion was issued by this Court on 25.03.2015 whereafter a joint affidavit has been filed by the Head Master, School Management Committee and the respondent No. 8 wherein it has been stated that the service of the petitioner was terminated in the year 1999 itself, to be precise on 31.10.1999. The petitioner had accordingly filed the second writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 2428/2016 against such termination order by contending that the same is a manufactured document as she was all along working till the filing of the writ petition only whereafter she was debarred from discharging her duties.

8. I have heard Shri F. U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. S. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education