Subhash Ch Roy vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3006 Gua

                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010190512021




                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
                        PRADESH)

                   Case No. : WP(C)/6095/2021

         SUBHASH CH ROY
         S/O LATE KAILASH CH. ROY
         VILLAGE NALIA PART II
         PO DIMAKURI, PS GOLAKGANK, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM
         783334



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND
         SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION
         DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR GUWAHATI ,
         ASSAM 781006

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

          ASSAM KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI 19

         3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

          DHUBRI
          ASSAM

         4:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
          DIST DHUBRI
          ASSAM

         5:SRI DHIRENDRA NATH ROY
                                                       Page No.# 2/3

            S/O SRI DHANESWAR ROY
            VILLAGE NALIA PART II
            PO DIMAKURI
            PS GOLAKGANK
            DIST DHUBRI
            ASSAM 7833

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P K DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                         BEFORE
        HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

                                JUDGMENT

Date : 22.11.2021

Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, Standing Counsel, Elementary Education, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mrs. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for Respondent No.4.

The petitioner's claim is that he was appointed as the Headmaster of Bhogdanda Kitu Simanta M.E. School on 03.01.1996, while the private respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher of the same school only on 25.11.2009. However, when the school was provincialised the private respondent who is junior to him was provincialised while leaving him behind. Therefore, the act of the respondents is illegal and unreasonable.

Issue notice to the Respondents returnable within three weeks.

Page No.# 3/3

Since notice has been accepted on behalf of all the Respondents except for the private respondent, the petitioner shall take steps only in respect of that respondent. He shall do so within two days so that notice may be sent through Registered Post with AD Card attached.

Regarding the prayer for stay of the provincialisation of the Respondent No.5's service, the same shall be heard when the notice returns.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant