Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 28 October, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010125092014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3066/2014
KAILASH CHANDRA PRODHANI and ANR
S/O LT. NIPENDRA NATH PRODHANI, VILL. and P.O. BIDYARDABRI, DIST-
DHUBRI, ASSAM
2: JULL HUSSAIN MONDOL
S/O LT. NASIRUDDIN MUNSHI
VILL. and P.O. DIGHALTARY
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
5:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
DHUBRI
DIST- DHUBRI
Page No.# 2/3
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S BANIK
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 28/10/2021
Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondents in the Elementary
Education Department.
2. There is a judgment of this Court dated 29.04.2002 in WP(C) 3187/2001 in
respect of the petitioner, wherein, paragraph-5 it is provided as under:-
"5.Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with a
direction to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhubri to complete the
formalities for issue of letters of appointment in view of the
discussions made in this judgments"
3. Paragraph-5 is a clear mandamus by the Court to complete the formality
of issuing appointment letters to the petitioner. The said direction cannot be
interpreted in any other manner. In compliance of the said direction, the
Commissioner & Secretary in the Elementary Education Department had passed
an order dated 14.06.2021. The order reads that the judgment dated
29.04.2002 required the authorities to complete the process of regularization of
the service of the petitioner as honorary teacher. The said basis appears to be a
deviation from the judgment dated 29.04.2002 wherein, a direction was to issue
appointment letter and not to complete the process of regularization. After
reading the judgment dated 29.04.2002, it is noticed that the Court had already
Page No.# 3/3
accepted the completion of the process of regularization and only consequential
direction which requires compliance is to issue the appointment letter. But the
Commissioner & Secretary in the same order further arrives at the conclusion
that the records reveal the petitioner was not selected by the Sub divisional
Officer, therefore, the claim of the petitioner stood rejected by stating that it
does not have merit.
4. We are constrained to observe that if there is a direction from this Court to
issue appointment letter the only compliance is to issue the appointment letter
or to carry the judgment in an appeal and no other option is available to the
respondents.
5. Further if the direction is to issue appointment letter for the reason that
he had served for more than 10 years as a honorary teacher, there cannot
remain any question on the requirement of the petitioner to be selected by Sub
divisional officer.
6. From such point of view, the conclusion of the Commissioner appears to
be a case of non application of mind.
7. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel prays for some time to examine the
aforesaid aspect.
List on 03.11.2021.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
