IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
CHANDRESWAR SAIKIA – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 9573 of 2019, W.P. (C) No. 1772 of 2017, W.P. (C) Nos. 3288, 3329 of 2016
Decided On : 08-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) 9573/2019 & WP (C) 3288/2016 and Mr. J.I. Borbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) 3329/2016 & WP (C) 1772/2017. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumder, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing counsel, Finance Department.
2. By filing these petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the show-cause notice No. 4981-5730 dated 30.03.1992 and impugned termination order vide Memo No. 7040-43 dated 18.05.1992 issued by the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhemaji, by which the service of the petitioners have been terminated.
3. Having considered that these writ petitions are analogous on facts and law, the same were heard and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. In WP (C) 9573/2019, the writ petitioners, 14 in numbers, having requisite qualification for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher of L.P. Schools, applied for the said posts pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities. It is contended that after due selection process and on being selected, they were appointed by the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhemaji to the post of Assistant Teachers of L.P. Schools in different schools at Dhemaji in the year 1989. The petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Tulsibari Gandhiji L.P. School and Bordoloni Tiniali L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 respectively; petitioner No. 3 at Garpara L.P. School vide order dated 13.12.1989; petitioner No. 4 at Ratua Pathar L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 5 at Moinapara L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 6 at Padumoni L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 7 at Gosaibari L.P. School vide order dated 13.12.1989; petitioner No. 8 at Bhakat Gaon L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 9 at Padumoni L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 and petitioner No. 10 at Bhakat Koiborta L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 11 at Joyrampur L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 12 at Borbila Kachari L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989; petitioner No. 13 at Na-nadi Gosaibari L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 and petitioner No. 14 at Mongalati L.P. School vide order dated 19.12.1989 by the Inspector of School, Dhemaji. The petitioners have been transferred from one school to another school, to which they have rendered and discharge their duties in the respective schools.
5. It is contended that the service of the petitioners were confirmed w.e.f. their respective dates of appointment by the Deputy Inspector of School, Dhemaji. It is also contended that the respondent authorities have allowed the petitioners to cross the efficiency bar in their services w.e.f. 01.12.2004. Some of the petitioners were allowed to discharge duties as Headmaster of the schools by the respondent authorities.
6. While the petitioners were serving in the respective schools, the respondent authorities stopped the payment of salary from April, 1996 without any reason. However on the request by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji, the Joint Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam directed the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhemaji to release the salary of the teachers appointed and working against each sanctioned non-planned posts. Accordingly, the monthly salaries of the petitioners were released w.e.f. 01.04.1996 upto July, 2007. Thereafter, although the petitioners were appointed after due selection process and appointed against the valid sanctioned post and their services being confirmed by the competent authority, thereby service book being opened and GPF money being deducted from their monthly salary from 2000 on 06.11.2006, a list was published showing the name of the teachers appointed in the year 1989 getting salary after termination till date, wherein, th
Dulu Devi vs. State of Assam and Others
G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 127
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Qimat Rai Gupta and Others
National Textile Corporation (M.P.) Limited vs. M.R. Jadhav
Union of India and Others vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Others
Termination orders must be communicated to be effective; failure to do so renders them invalid, affirming the statutory rights of employees to their positions and benefits.
Point of Law : Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 provides detailed procedure for imposing major punishment in case of confirmed employees, and if that is allowed to be given a go by that would frustrate the v....
Appointments made without following statutory rules are deemed illegal, and such appointees are not entitled to claim salaries or relief under the Constitution.
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.