Gauhati High Court
Monoj Kairi vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 9 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010057692022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2194/2022
MONOJ KAIRI
S/O LATE RAM NARAYAN KAIRI, R/O VILL-DENGARBOND, P.O.-SOLGOI,
P.S.-BAJARICHORA, DIST-KARIMGANJ, PIN-788726
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
3:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL
KDC
KARIMGANJ
4:THE HEADMASTER
SOLGOI HIGH SCHOOL
P.O.-SOLGOI
DIST-KARIMGANJ
PIN-78872
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GHOSH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
O R D E R
09.05.2022
Heard Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SMT Chisti,
learned counsel for the respondents in the Secondary Education Department of
the Government of Assam. Considering the relief sought for in this writ petition,
we are of the view that we need not wait any further for the notice to be served
on the respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner was appointed as the Additional Hindi Teacher (Second
Hindi Teacher) in the Sologi High School in the district of Karimganj as per the
resolution of the School Managing Committee dated 30.12.2007 and it is stated
that the said appointment was on the basis of an advertisement dated
01.12.2007. It is stated that one Bijoy Narayan Kairy, who was the First Hindi
Teacher of the school was provincialised under the Assam Venture Educational
Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (in short Act of 2011), but in
the meantime, he died on 23.07.2015.
3. Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the First
Hindi Teacher of the school was provincialised under the Act of 2011, there was
also a requirement to provincialise the second post of Hindi Teacher taking into
account the number of students the particular school had. But as the same
cannot be done now inasmuch as the Act of 2011 had been declared ultra vires
by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 23.09.2016 in WP(C)
No. 3190/2012, the petitioner claims that there is a corresponding requirement
to now consider the provincialisation of the petitioner under the Assam
Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and re-organization of
Page No.# 3/3
Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short Act of 2017) inasmuch as, the said
post has not yet been considered for provincialisation. In the circumstance, Mr.
SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued
to the Director, Secondary Education, Assam to consider the claim of the
petitioner for provincialisation under the Act of 2017 and if under the law the
same is admissible, necessary order thereof be passed.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Director of
Secondary Education, Assam to call for the records pertaining to the service of
the petitioner and if upon perusal thereof the Director is of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled for a provincialisation under the Act of 2017, necessary
reasoned order be passed and on the other hand, if the Director is of the view
that the petitioner cannot be provincialised under the Act of 2017, again a
reasoned order be passed thereon. The reasoned order be passed by the
Director within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
5. We are clarifying that by requiring the Director to examine the aspect, we
are not indicating either in favour or against the claim of the petitioner for
provincialisation under the Act of 2017 and it would be open for the Director to
pass any reasoned order as may be advisable under the law.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
