Gauhati High Court
Mal Chandra Mili vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 1 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010014012015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2930/2015
MAL CHANDRA MILI
S/O SRI RATNESWAR MILI R/O NO. BORGAYAN, P.O. BORGAYAN, P.S.
MAJULI GRAMIN, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONR AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST. KAMRUP M,
ASSAM.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM.
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
MAJULI
KAMALABARI DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM.
5:THE HEAD MASTER
Page No.# 2/3
MAHKINA TINIALI VENTURE L.P. SCOOL
GARMUR KAMALABARI
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM.
6:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT and MEMBER SECRETARY
HOGH POWER COMMITTEE.
7:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT and MEMBER SECRETARY
HOGH POWER COMMITTEE. AND THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTED FOR THE SELECTION OF DROPPED TEACHERS
DISPUR
REP. BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY
HIGH POWER COMMITTEE
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B KUMARR-5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 01-11-2021
Heard Ms. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.
Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 being the
authorities under the Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of
Assam.
2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the
respondent No.5 being the Headmaster of Mahkina Tiniali Venture L.P. School is
not required to be heard.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher on honorary basis in the
Mahkina Tiniali Venture L.P. School on 19.10.1993. The said school was
Page No.# 3/3
otherwise provincialised on 01.05.1995. It is apparent that the petitioner was
appointed as an honorary teacher prior to the school being provincialised. In
this respect, there is a judgment of this Court dated 23.03.2011 in WP(C)
1711/2011 by which there is a requirement to constitute a High Power
Committee to consider the claim of regularization of such teachers who are
appointed on honorary basis prior to the school concerned being provincialised,
which in common parlance also called dropped teachers.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although the petitioner comes
within the meaning of dropped teacher, his service had not been provincalised.
5. Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department
upon a telephonic instruction from the respondents states that the claim of the
petitioner has already placed before the High Power Committee constituted
pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 23.03.2011 in WP(C) 1711/2011,
but yet no decision has been taken
6. Considering such statement, we direct the High Power Committee being
the respondent No.6 in the present writ petition to give consideration to the
claim of the petitioner for regularization as a dropped teacher and after perusal
of the records and on being satisfied to pass a reasoned order.
7. The requirement be done within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the order.
8. Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
