Gauhati High Court
Amulya Prasad Saikia vs Rupali Narah And 7 Ors. B on 20 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010096892023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/52/2024
AMULYA PRASAD SAIKIA
S/O LT. KERO SAIKIA, R/O GHUMUCHA BARI, P.O.- CHIRAM BANAMALI,
P.S.- JENGRAIMUKH, PIN- 785105 IN THE DISTRICT OF MAJULI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
RUPALI NARAH AND 7 ORS. B
D/O- JUNARAM NARAH, R/O- VILL- NA BHANGA MUK, P.O.- CHIRAM
BONAMALI, BLOCK- KAMALABARI, PIN- 785105, DIST.- MAJULI, ASSAM.
2:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI- 19
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
MAJULI/JORHAT DISTRICT
REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MAJULI/JORHAT DISTRICT
4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
MAJULI/JORHAT
DISTRICT- MAJULI, PIN- 785104, ASSAM.
5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
MAJULI
DIST.- MAJULI, PIN- 785104, ASSAM.
6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPTT. OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06, ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/5
7:DEVI RAM TAHU
TUTOR
NA BHANGA JANAJATI M.E. SCHOOL
VILL- NA BHANGA MUKH
P.O. CHIRAM BONAMALI
BLOCK- KAMALABARI
DIST.- MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN- 785105.
8:THAGIRAM DAS
VILL- NA BHANGA MUKH
P.O. CHIRAM BONAMALI
BLOCK- KAMALABARI
DIST.- MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN- 785105
For appellant(s) : Mr. P. Mahanta, Advocate
Ms. M. Das, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. B. K. Das, Advocate
Ms. K. Das, SC, Elementary Education
Mr. N. Das, GA, Assam
Mr. D. Deka, Advocate
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
20.03.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the
judgment and order dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No. 1623/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the
writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has granted liberty to
the respondent No. 1 as well as the appellant to prefer appeal before the State
Level Scrutiny Committee. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has also
set aside the provincialisation of the appellant's services. The learned Single
Judge has further directed that in the event of filing such appeal by the
respondent No. 1 as well as by the appellant, the appellate authority shall
Page No.# 3/5
dispose of the said appeal within 90 (Ninety) days by passing a reasoned order,
after verification of the relevant records and after providing opportunity of
hearing to all concerned.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 herein
approached the writ court by way of filing WP(C) 1623/2021 claiming that she
was teaching Social Science to the students in Na Bhanga Janajati M.E. (Rural)
School, under the Jani Majuli Education Block, in the district of Jorhat, Assam.
However, when the matter of provincialisation of the teaching and non-teaching
staff of the said school was taken up for consideration under the provisions of
the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-
organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, as amended, the services of
the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were considered for provincialisation by the
authorities concerned under the provisions of the said Act, while discarding the
better claim of the petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and after taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents in the writ petition, has ordered for setting aside the
provincialisation of the services of the appellant only. However, so far as the
claim of the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has
relegated her to approach the appellate authority, i.e. State Level Scrutiny
Committee, to substantiate her claim for provincialisation, as prayed for. At the
same time, the learned Single Judge has also kept it open for the appellant to
approach the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
Page No.# 4/5
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that, as a
matter of fact, the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition never prayed for setting
aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant, but the learned
Single Judge has ignored this aspect of the matter and has illegally set aside the
provincialisation of the services of the appellant. It is contended that had the
provincialisation of the appellant been challenged in the writ petition, the
appellant would have defended his case, but without providing any opportunity
to defend the provincialisation of his services, the learned Single Judge has
illegally set aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has therefore prayed that the appeal filed
by the appellant may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the provincialisation of the
appellant's services may kindly be interfered with.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents as well as the
learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 have opposed the writ appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that
since the respondent No. 7 is not affected by the impugned order, he has
nothing to submit.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having
perused the material available on record, we are of the view that when the
provincialisation of the services of the appellant was not under challenge in the
writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, there was no occasion for the
learned Single Judge to examine the matter of provincialisation of the
appellant's services. It is also to be noted that this Court, vide order dated
Page No.# 5/5
08.05.2024, stayed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to
the extent of setting aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant,
while clarifying that the State Level Scrutiny Committee would be free to
proceed with the representation, if any, filed by the respondent No. 1.
This Court is apprised that pursuant to the said order, the respondent No. 1
preferred an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, however, the
appeal has been dismissed and the appellate authority has again recommended
for provincialisation of the services of the appellant vide order dated
26.11.2024.
7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the provincialisation of
the appellant's services is not liable to be sustained. The same is therefore set
aside up to that extent.
Needless to say that the respondent No. 1, if aggrieved by the order dated
26.11.2024 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, he is free to avail
appropriate remedy available to him under the law.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
