IMPORTANT POINT
The actual duties performed by an employee should be considered over the nomenclature of their initial appointment, and the relaxation of provisions in the rules should be extended to similarly situated individuals.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.A. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education, Assam appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

2. None has appeared for the respondent no. 5.

3. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has raised a grievance with regard to non-regularisation of her services as an Assistant Teacher of Barbond M.E. School, Hailakandi, although, the petitioner contends that she is a “dropped teacher.”

4. As projected in the writ petition, the Managing Committee of Barbond M.E. School, Hailakandi adopted a resolution in its meeting held on 04.03.1977, towards appointing the petitioner as a Sanskrit Teacher in the said school. In terms of the said resolution, the petitioner had joined her services in the said school on 01.04.1977 and served therein, till the year 2018. It is to be noted that at the time of appointment and joining of the petitioner in the said school, the school was in its venture stage. The respondent authorities w.e.f. 01.07.1977, brought the said school under the deficit system of grant-in-aid. On such application of the provisions of deficit system of grant-in-aid in the said school, the services of 6(six) teachers serving therein were brought under the said system, leaving out the petitioner from purview of the benefits now accrued to the serving teachers in the said school on it being brought under the deficit system of grant-in-aid. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities for extending to her the benefit of provincialisation of her services w.e.f. 01.03.1978, as was so extended to the other teachers so working in the said school. The authorities having not considered her case, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being WP(C)/6963/2003.

5. This Court, vide an order dated 02.09.2003, on considering the issues arising in the matter was pleased to dispose of the said petition holding that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2003, passed in the case of Jiban Ch. Deka and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, 2008 (3) GLT 229 and required the case of the petitioner to be considered by the committee so constituted by the said Judgment and Order of this Court, for regularizing the services of the “dropped teachers.”

6. The petitioner, in pursuance to the said order dated 02.09.2003, passed by this Court in WP(C)/6963/2003, approached the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for regularization of her services. Thereafter, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide a communication dated 09.07.2004 sought a report from the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi with regard to the services rendered by the petitioner and the said report was submitted on 10.01.2005. It is contended in the writ petition that on 15.12.2005, an advertisement was issued requiring the “dropped teachers” of Elementary schools to appear before the Screening Committee as constituted in the matter along with all their requisite documents for screening and the dates was so fixed on 24.12.2005. The petitioner appeared before the Screening Committee on 28.12.2005, however, the Headmaster of the said school could not appear before the said committee on the said date on account of certain personal difficulties, which was communicated to the Chairman of the Screening Committee by the Headmaster.

7. On conclusion of the process of screening as was undertaken in the matter in pursuance to the said advertisement dated 15.12.2005, the High Power Committee (HPC) so constituted, proceeded to publish a list of “dropped teachers” district wise, on 15.12.2011 and therein, on the basis of seniority, the name of the petitioner figured therein at Serial No. 2 against the district of Hailakandi.

8. Inspite of the said developments taking place, the services of the petitioner not being regularized and accordingly, the represe