Gauhati High Court
Smti. Dipti Hazarika vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 8 December, 2023
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010248642022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7860/2022
SMTI. DIPTI HAZARIKA
W/O LT. PABITRA KUMAR DUTTA, R/O BAPAPUNG SETTLEMENT AREA,
P.O. AND P.S.-DIGBOI, DIST-TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SACHIVALAYA,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
3:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
4:THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BHIMPATHER BAPUJI HIGH SCHOOL
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DIGBOI
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
6:AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION
REPRESENTED HERIN BY ITS MISSION DIRECTOR. KAHILIPARA
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI-781019
ASSAM.
7:NATIONAL UNIVERSITY FOR EDUCATION PLANNING ADMINISTRATION
( NUEPA )
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF INDI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 08-12-2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U Sarma,
learned counsel for the respondents in the Secondary Education Department,
Government of Assam, Mr. P Saikia, learned Junior Government Advocate for the
Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, Mr. A Chaliha, learned counsel for the SSA and
Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents in the NEUPA.
2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the
Bhimpathar Bapuji High School as per the resolution Nos. 2 and 3 of the
Managing Committee dated 06.06.1994 and upon joining, she was allotted to
discharge the duties as a Science Teacher. The petitioner was subjected to the
process of provincialisation under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of
Services of Teachers and re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017
(in short Act of 2017).
3. In the DISE data maintained by the respondent authorities, the name of
the petitioner is depicted a Dipti Dutta, which is the name of the petitioner after
Page No.# 3/4
her marriage. The maiden name of the petitioner is Dipti Hazarika and while she
was appointed in 1994, her name was recorded as Dipti Hazarika and in the
resultant circumstance, when her claim for provincialisation was processed, the
school authorities had send the particulars by showing her name to the Dipti
Hazarika. But, as there is a mismatch of the name with the records sent by the
school authorities and that of the records maintained in the DISE data, the
process for provincialisation of the petitioner has been stalled.
4. No material has been placed before us that Dipti Hazarika and Dipti Dutta
are two different persons, which requires an adjudication as to who between
the two has to be provincialised. All that had happened is that as because the
petitioner had acquired the marital name after her marriage as Dipti Dutta, the
DISE Data that were captured at that relevant point of time showed her to be
Dipti Dutta whereas while sending the particulars, the school authorities dealt
upon the original record of appointment which contains the name to be Dipti
Hazarika and accordingly, send the particulars as Dipti Hazarika.
5. The said aspect can be resolved by the Secretary to the Government of
Assam in the Secondary Education Department, by conducting an enquiry as to
whether Dipti Dutta and Dipti Hazarika are two different persons and if they are
not two different persons and it is a continuation of the name of the petitioner
which was originally Dipti Hazarika and later on it is Dipti Dutta, appropriate
orders may be passed.
6. We are conscious of the aspect that as per Section 3 (1)(xii) of the Act of
2017, there is also a requirement that the name of the teacher who is sought to
be provincialised must also be available in the DISE code that is maintained by
the system which apparently appears to be a provision to rule out the possibility
of any ineligible persons from being provincialised. But, when it is the case of a
Page No.# 4/4
genuine grievance of it being the same person, but at different stages
recognized under two names inasmuch her maiden name and marital name are
different, the matter would definitely have to be considered otherwise. Section
20 of the Act of 2017 give the power to the State Government to do anything
not inconsistent with the provision of Act and Rules framed there-under and
whenever it is necessary and expedient for the purpose to remove any
difficulties.
7. The present dispute appears to be a kind of a dispute which can be
appropriately resolved by the authorities in the Government by making a factual
verification as to whether Dipti Hazarika and Dipti Dutta are two different person
or they are one and the same person. If they are one and the same person, we
see no reason as to why the power under section 20 of the Act of 2017 should
not be invoked.
8. Accordingly, the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary
Education Department shall do the needful as stated above, and if necessary, by
giving a hearing to the petitioner as well as to all other parties who may be
involved in the matter. The requirement be done by the Secretary within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
