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) 1174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Md. Fazar Ali, S/o. Lt. Mahammad Ali – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Education Deptt. and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.6275 Of 2015, WP(C) No.3721 Of 2015
Decided On : 06-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.C. Borah.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Khan, SC, Elementary Education, MRJ Rahman.

IMPORTANT POINT
Continuous service is essential for eligibility for provincialisation under the Assam Education Act, and valid termination negates claims for such benefits.

Headnote:

Provincialisation - Employment Termination - Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017; Assam Non-Governmental Educational Institution (Regulation & Management) Act, 2006 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Acts to determine eligibility for provincialisation and the validity of termination, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to provincialisation due to lack of continuous service.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the provincialisation of a Grade-IV employee's services and the termination of his own services by the school authorities, claiming continuous employment since 1992 and disputing the validity of the termination order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not in continuous service at the time of provincialisation and that the termination order was validly communicated, thus upholding the provincialisation of the respondent's services.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to provincialisation of his services and whether the termination of his employment was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that continuous service is a prerequisite for provincialisation under the Act of 2017, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate such service due to his termination.

Result: The petitioner's claims for provincialisation were denied, and the termination order was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :

Heard Mr. J.C. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the abovenoted writ petitions. Also heard Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education, Assam representing the State respondents, Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 & 6 in both the writ petitions and Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 in WP(C)/3721/2015.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting WP(C)/3721/2015, has presented a challenge to the consideration being made in respect of respondent no. 7 for provincialisation of his services as a Grade-IV employee in Pam Kaliadinga Girls’ M.E. School and also for an appropriate direction for provincialisation of his services as a Grade-IV employee in the school. The petitioner has by of instituting WP(C)/6275/2015, presented a challenge to an order dated 27.07.2013, issued by the school authorities terminating his services.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts as available in WP(C)/3721/2015 is being considered and the parties are so denoted as per their placement in the said writ petition.

4. The petitioner, herein, has contended that Pam Kaliadinga Girls’ M.E. Madrassa (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the school’’) was established in the year 1991 and the same was so allowed to run over a plot of land, owned by the family of the petitioner. On account of the donation of the land in question, to the said school by the family of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a Grade-IV employee (Chowkidar) by the Managing Committee of the said school, vide an order dated 25.06.1992. It is contended by the petitioner that in the Inspection Report, as available till 2011, the name of the petitioner figured therein, as an employee of the school, working against the Grade-IV post. It is further contended that the petitioner had received financial assistance, as sanctioned to the said school in question, for the year 2010-2011. However, thereafter, he was not extended with such financial incentives.

5. A dispute having arisen in connection with the land as donated by the petitioner and his family to the said school in question, and the land so mutated in the name of the school, the petitioner along with his family members instituted proceedings for cancellation of the said mutation. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, on consideration of the matter, proceeded vide order dated 24.02.2014 to set aside the said mutation with further direction to the jurisdictional Circle Officer to start a fresh process of mutation in respect of the land possessed by the school in question.

6. Being aggrieved by the said direction, the school authorities approached the Assam Revenue Board, assailing the said order dated 24.02.2014, issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. The Assam Revenue Board, on consideration of the matter, interfered with the order dated 24.02.2014, issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, vide order dated 21.08.2014 and restored the mutation so made in respect of the disputed land with the above noted school.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had instituted WP(C)/4518/2014, assailing the order dated 21.08.2014, passed by the Assam Revenue Board, Guwahati.

8. The petitioner had also instituted writ petition being WP(C) No. 1829/2014 along with 02 of his brothers, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities, not to provincialize the said school.

9. The school authorities had also approached this Court at that relevant point of time by way of instituting WP(C)/3108/2014, praying for being authorized the financial assistance due to the serving employees of the said school.

10. This Court, proceeded to analogously consider the said writ petitions being WP(C)/4518/2014, WP(C)/1829/2014 and WP(C)/3108/2014 and thereafter, vide order dated 26.02.2015, rejected the challenge as presented by the petitioner, to the order dated 21.08.2014, as passed by the Assam Re

    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