IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Khudeja Begum, W/o. Late Jalal Uddin - Petitioner
Versus
Saleha Begum Laskar, W/o. Md. Saifuddin Laskar & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 100 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) No. 2599 of 2023, I.A.(Civil) No. 2688 of 2023, WA No. 355 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2024
Provincialization - Employment Termination - Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011 - The court interpreted the Act's provisions regarding service continuity and qualifications, concluding that the termination of the respondent was invalid, thus affecting the provincialization of the appellant's service.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in 1996, while the appellant was appointed in 2008. The respondent's termination in 1999 was contested, leading to writ petitions regarding the provincialization of their services under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination order against the respondent was never communicated, thus invalidating it. The respondent was deemed to have continued in service, making her eligible for provincialization over the appellant.
Issues: The key issues were the validity of the respondent's termination and the propriety of the provincialization of the appellant's service under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an uncommunicated termination does not take effect, and the respondent's continuous service entitled her to provincialization, while the appellant's provincialization was improper due to her junior status and lack of qualifications.
Result: The writ appeals were dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision.
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in both these writ appeals. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents; and Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, in both these appeals.
2. The above-noted intra-Court appeals have been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment & order, 16.06.2023, passed by the learned single Judge in WP(c)1651/2015 and WP(c)2428/2016, allowing the said writ petitions.
3. For the purpose of adjudication of the issues arising in the present appeals; the facts and the placement of the parties are so denoted from Writ Appeal No. 355/2023.
4. As projected in the writ appeal; the respondent No. 1, herein, was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant by the Managing Committee of Tarinipur High School on 28.02.1996 and she had joined her service on 01.03.1996. At the time of joining of the respondent No. 1, in the said school; there was another employee, namely, Jalal Uddin, who was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant, against the first post of Lower Division Assistant. However, said Jalal Uddin died-in-harness in the year 2008. Thereafter, the appellant, herein, came to be appointed by the Managing Committee of the said school as a Lower Division Assistant vide order, dated 04.02.2008. The order, dated 04.02.2008, also reflects that the appellant was engaged on honorary basis w.e.f. 01.01.2000. Upon the enactment of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011, the above-noted school being found to be eligible for provincialization of the services of its employees; the school authorities had forwarded the names of the employees working in the said school. In the initial list so submitted by the authorities of the said school; the name of the respondent No. 1, herein, was not so forwarded. However, subsequently, the name of the respondent No. 1, herein, was so forwarded by the authorities of the said school. On a consideration being so made in terms of the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011; the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, vide order, dated 20.08.2013, proceeded to provincialize the services of the appellant, herein, as Junior Assistant.
5. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1, herein, instituted WP(c)1651/2015; assailing the provincialization so effected in the case of the appellant, herein. The appellant, herein, along with the Headmaster of the said school filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition in the said writ petition and therein; contended that the respondent No. 1, herein, was terminated from her service w.e.f. 31.10.1999, in terms of a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the said school, on account of her long absence. It was further projected in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the appellant, herein, was initially engaged on temporary and honorary basis against the post of Lower Division Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2000 by the Managing Committee of the said school and thereafter, appointed as Lower Division Assistant(i), vide order, dated 04.02.2008.
6. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, thereafter, instituted WP(c)2428/2016, assailing her order of termination.
7. Both the above-noted writ petitions were heard analogously and the learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 16.06.2023, proceeded to allow the said writ petitions by interfering with the provincialization as effected in the case of appellant, herein, as well as by interfering with the order of termination, dated 31.10.1999, as issued in respect of the respondent No. 1, herein.
8. Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the respondent No. 1, herein, having been terminated from her service vide a resolution so adopted by the Managing Committee of the said school w.e.
An uncommunicated termination is invalid, and continuous service is essential for provincialization under the relevant educational act.
Merely writing something on file does not amount to an order.
Continuous service is essential for eligibility for provincialisation under the Assam Education Act, and valid termination negates claims for such benefits.
The Court established that seniority for provincialization of teachers' services must be determined based on accurate service records as per the Assam Education Act, 2017.
The revival of provincialisation orders for teachers is permissible following the enactment of new legislation that addresses the rights of employees previously affected by a struck-down statute.
The School Management Committee had the authority to terminate a teacher's service prior to provincialization notification; thus, the revocation of the cancellation order was in error.
The appellate authority must provide a reasoned decision based on all relevant materials, not solely on the petitioner's failure to appear at hearings.
The petitioner has a vested right for consideration of provincialization of services based on continuous service since 02.04.2010, despite erroneous submission by school authorities.
The court established that eligibility for provincialization of teachers' services must be based on verified service records and seniority, as per the provisions of the relevant Act.
The court affirmed that the petitioner, having been appointed prior to provincialization, has a right to regularization based on continuous service as established by credible documentation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.