Gauhati High Court
Mrs. Ranjani Kalita vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 13 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010088862022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3098/2022
MRS. RANJANI KALITA
W/O- PRATAP KALITA
R/O- VILLAGE KANDUKUCHI
P.O- SANDHA
DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM
PIN-781337
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPTT.
OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE DIRECTOR
OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
O/O THE ASSAM DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
NALBARI
DIST-NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
PUB NALBARI BLOCK
DIST-NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
Page No.# 2/5
5:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
DIST-NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
6:HEADMASTER
619 NO. BORKHANAJAN
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
DIST-NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 13-05-2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. PK Borah,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 being the authorities in
the Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. B
Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 being the Finance Department.
Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not
required to be issued to the respondent No. 6, who is the Headmaster of 619
No. Borkhanajan LP School in the Nalbari district.
Page No.# 3/5
2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in
the No. 1 Kusumjuli LP School in the Tamulpur Block and later on by the order
dated 08.06.2005 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari she was
transferred and kept attached at Borkhanajan LP School in the Pub Nalbari
block. The order itself indicates a peculiarity of its own to the extent that on one
hand it was an order of transfer and on the other hand, the petitioner was kept
attached. In any way, we are not expressing any view on the same.
3. By the show cause notice dated 08.09.2006 of the Director of Elementary
Education, Assam, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why her
appointment should not be treated to be illegal and cancelled. The specific
allegation against the petitioner made in the show cause notice dated
08.09.2006 is that the records do not reveal that the petitioner was selected for
appointment as per the Rules provided in the Assam Elementary Education
(Provincialisation) Rules, 1997 (in short Rules of 1997), which were in force
when the alleged appointment of the petitioner was made.
4. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 22.09.2006,
wherein she had taken the stand that she participated in a selection process
pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools,
Nalbari. The petitioner also takes the stand that she was required to appear in
an interview as per Call Letter No. 5436 and in such process, the appointment
letter dated 04.12.1999 was issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari
in her favour.
5. As it is a specific allegation by the authorities against the petitioner that
her appointment itself is illegal and again it is a specific response by the
petitioner that her appointment was pursuant to some selection process, we are
of the view that under the law there was a requirement of the authorities to
Page No.# 4/5
bring the said proceeding to its logical end by giving the petitioner an adequate
opportunity to prove her case as per the stand taken in the reply dated
08.09.2006 (submitted on 22.09.2006). However, without bringing the process
to its logical end, subsequent notices and orders were issued to the petitioners
and the case of the petitioner was also referred to some committee, wherein the
committee arrived at its conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was
illegal. All such subsequent orders or references to the committee would have to
be inapplicable in law inasmuch as, on a specific charge, a person can be
proceeded only once and multiple proceedings cannot be held.
6. From such point of view, we have to accept that the first show cause
notice dated 08.09.2006 would have to be deemed to be the initial proceeding
that was initiated against the petitioner. This writ petition is instituted raising the
grievance that since then the petitioner had not been paid the salary and
allowances and as such claims for the arrear salary and allowances.
7. If there is a specific allegation of the respondents against the petitioner
that her appointment itself was illegal and the petitioner had given her reply
thereof, it is incumbent under the law for the authorities to bring the said
process to its logical end rather than taking any other view subsequent to some
other orders or references to the committee that may have been made.
8. Accordingly, we direct the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to
bring to its logical end the proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the
show cause notice dated 08.09.2006 by taking note of her reply dated
08.09.2006 (submitted on 22.09.2006). In doing so, the Director may give
opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case that she was a selected
candidate and was engaged in service in a legitimate means. After conducting
the enquiry by following the due procedure of law, a reasoned order may be
Page No.# 5/5
passed by the Director as regards the service condition of the petitioner. The
service condition of the petitioner would be governed by the reasoned order
that may be passed.
9. The petitioner be given all the opportunity to produce any relevant
material or document that the petitioner desires to rely upon to substantiate her
case. The reasoned order be passed within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above manner.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
