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

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
Jiban Ch. Barman, S/o. Janaku Barman And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The Comm. And Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Education (Elementary) Deptt., And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.6147 Of 2022
Decided On : 01-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.U. Mondal.

Headnote:

Provincialisation - Elementary Education - Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 - Section 3 (1) (xii) - DISE Code - Beltoli Nabajyoti LP School - 2009-2010 - 2017 - rejection of provincialisation - DISE data - extreme remote location - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - violation of Article 14 - technical interpretation - salaries not paid - allowed

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, teachers of Beltoli Nabajyoti LP School, sought provincialisation of their services under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. However, their claim was rejected due to the unavailability of DISE data for the school prior to 2009. The school's extreme remote location and its status as the only educational institution in the area were highlighted.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of provincialisation based on the unavailability of DISE data was unjustified given the unique circumstances of the school's location and its importance in providing education to the local community. The court also noted that the school's existence and necessary information were verified, and the strict technical interpretation of the law would lead to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the rejection of provincialisation based on the unavailability of DISE data, the unique circumstances of the school's location, and the entitlement of the teachers to salaries.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of provincialisation solely based on the unavailability of DISE data was unjustified, considering the school's extreme remote location and its significance in providing education to the local community. The court also emphasized that the strict technical interpretation of the law would lead to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection of provincialisation, and directed the authorities to process the claim for provincialisation of the teachers. It also ordered the payment of salaries to the petitioners within one month. The order providing for the withdrawal of provincialisation was also set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents in the Elementary Education Department of Government of Assam, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents in the SSA and as well as BTC respectively and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 6 being the Deputy Commissioner, Chirang.

2. This writ petition is instituted by Jiban Ch. Barman and Monjit Kumar Brahma both being teachers of Beltoli Nabajyoti LP School which is a mixed medium school. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 Jiban Ch. Barman has been working as the Head Teacher from 16.11.1999 and the petitioner No. 2 Monjit Kumar Brahma has been working as an Assistant Teacher from 27.02.2002. The school was initially allotted the DISE Code No. 0311206 for the period 20092010 to till date. By a letter dated 01.11.2012 the school along with its DISE Code was bifurcated and was brought under the purview of Chirang district upon the bifurcation of the earlier Bongaigaon district into Bongaigaon district and Chirang district.

3. The claim of the petitioners for provincialisation was required to have been processed under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (in short, the Act of 2011) but the matter could not be taken further inasmuchas the DISE data regarding the school which is required to be maintained was not maintained in the appropriate manner. In the circumstances, the orders dated 29.09.2015, 07.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 were passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and the Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha, Assam respectively, by which the claim for provincialisation of the petitioners stood rejected.

4. In the order dated 29.09.2015 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam the claim for provincialisation under the Act of 2011 was rejected by providing that the petitioner school namely Beltoli Nabajyoti LP School which was under Borobazar Educational Block of Chirang district did not have a DISE Code for the year 2009-2010 or prior to 2009-2010. By the order dated 07.07.2022 of the Mission Director of Samagra Shiksha, Assam (SSA, Assam) an order was passed that the DISE data is maintained by an institution named NIEPA (National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration), New Delhi under the Government of India in the Education Department and therefore, it was not possible for the authorities under the SSA to modify or rectify the DISE data in respect of the Beltoli Nabajyoti LP School. By the order dated 25.07.2022 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, the claim for provincialisation of the petitioner school was rejected by taking a stand that it was not possible for the authorities either in the SSA or in the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to modify or rectify the DISE data which had already been frozen by the NIEPA functioned under the Ministry of Education Government of India.

5. Being aggrieved the present writ petition is instituted seeking a direction for setting aside the three orders dated 29.09.2015, 07.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to provincialise the services of the petitioners.

6. We take note that the process for provincialisation of the petitioners was undertaken under the Act of 2011 but in the meantime the Act of 2011 had been declared to be ultra-virus by the judgment of this Court in Chandan Kr. Neog and others Vs. The State of Assam and others reported in 2016 (5) GLT 296. Upon the Act of 2011 being declared to be ultra-virus the State respondents had enacted the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short, the Act of 2017).

7. As the matter had not been carried forward sufficient enough to invoke the provisions of the Act of 2011, we are of the view that the claim for provincialisation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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