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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 437

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kardak Ete, J.
Mahammad Azad S/o Lt. Afaz Ali - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 2891 of 2014
Decided On : 02-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R Kalita
For the Respondent: Mr. J H Saikiar-3

IMPORTANT POINT
The court refrained from deciding on the genuineness of the appointment letter due to the pending criminal proceedings, but allowed the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum if the appointment letter of respondent No.4 is proven to be forged.

Headnote:

Forgery - Inter-se-seniority Dispute - Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERRED: Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011] - The court adjudicated on the inter-se-seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4, based on the date of joining and appointment. The appointment letter of respondent No.4 was alleged to be forged, leading to a criminal case. The court compared the original and photocopy of the appointment letter and found them to be distinct, but refrained from deciding on its genuineness due to the pending criminal proceedings. The petitioner was not granted relief, but was allowed to approach an appropriate forum if the appointment letter of respondent No.4 is proven to be forged.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order determining the inter-se-seniority with respondent No.4, alleging that respondent No.4's appointment letter was forged. The court compared the original and photocopy of the appointment letter and found them to be distinct, but refrained from deciding on its genuineness due to the pending criminal proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointment letter of respondent No.4 prima facie appeared to be not genuine, but refrained from deciding on its genuineness due to the pending criminal proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was the inter-se-seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4, based on the alleged forged appointment letter of respondent No.4.

Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from deciding on the genuineness of the appointment letter due to the pending criminal proceedings, but allowed the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum if the appointment letter of respondent No.4 is proven to be forged.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and no relief was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to approach an appropriate forum if the appointment letter of respondent No.4 is proven to be forged.

 

 

1.byinstituting this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order vide Memo. No.PC/HE/Misc.35/2011/Pt./1/160, dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam whereby petitioner is placed junior to the respondent No.4, Sri Dilip Ch. Haloi, in their inter-se-seniority on the basis of the date of birth as the date of joining in the services of petitioner and respondent No. 4 is on the same date i.e. on 10.11.2000. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant the benefit of provincialisation of his service under the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (now repealed), by assigning the petitioner his rightful position above the respondent No.4, in order of seniority of the teaching staff of Barkhetri College, Mukalmua.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Lecturer (now Assistant Professor) in the Department of Geography in Barkhetri College, Mukalmua in Nalbari District on 09.11.2000 and he has joined on 10.11.2000. There were two other Lecturers (Assistant Professors) in the Geography Department, who had joined earlier than the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4, namely, Sri Dilip Ch. Haloi joined the Barkhetri College as a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in the Geography Department on 20.07.2002.

3. The Barkhetri College, Mukalmua is a venture Educational Institution (Degree College), eligible for provincialisation of services of its employees under the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act of 2011’). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order being Memo. No.PC/HE/Misc.35/2011/Pt./1/160, dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam whereby the inter-se-seniority of the Assistant Professors of Barkhetri College has been determined, wherein the petitioner has been placed at Serial No.25, below the respondent No.4, who is placed at Serial No.24, thereby the petitioner is shown to be holding the 4th post of Assistant Professor in the Geography Department. The date of appointment and joining of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are shown to be on the same date i.e. on 09.11.2000 and 10.11.2000 respectively and the respondent No.4 has been placed above the petitioner by reason of he being older in age.

4. According to the petitioner, when he joined in Barkhetri College, there were only two Lecturers in the Geography Department and as such, he occupied the third post in the Geography Department. The respondent No.4 has joined on 20.07.2002 and occupied the 4th post of Lecturer in Geography Department. It is contended that at the time of the petitioner’s appointment and joining, one Sk. Mobaraque Hussain (respondent No.5 herein) was the founder Principal of the college and upon his retirement on superannuation, Md. Lokman Ali, a Lecturer of the college was given the charge of the post of Principal.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was not in the service of the college in the Department of Geography prior to 20.07.2002, which is evident from the relevant contemporaneous documents pertaining to the college relating to that period, as his name did not figure in the resolution of the General Meeting held on 04.03.2001, wherein the names of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college are mentioned. The name of the respondent No.4 does not find place in other documents.

6. In the year 2004, the Governing Body of the College submitted the particulars of the college including the names of teaching and non-teaching staff, as required by the Respondent No.2, vide letter dated 22.09.2004. The name of the Respondent No.4 appeared in the said list of teaching staff of the college by showing the date of his joining as 20.07.2002. Surprisingly, in the Year 2010, the then Principal of the College submitted another set of particulars vide letter dated 09.06.2010, wherein

                    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