AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. SB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education
Department, including the authorities in the Directorate of Madrassa Education and Ms. DD Barman, learned State counsel for respondent Nos.8,
9 and 10 and Mr. MH Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 11 to 14.
The petitioners claim that they were appointed as teacher in the Mubeswar Ali Memorial Senior Madrassa Bandukmara, Hailakandi. It is stated
in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that they were appointed by the Managing Committee of the concerned Madrassas and since then they have
been discharging their duties. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as a FM Teacher on 20.06.1994, the petitioner No.2 as Assistant
Teacher on 10.03.1993, the petitioner No.3 as Assistant Teacher on 20.02.1993 and the petitioner No.4 as Hindi Teacher on 14.08.1994
respectively.
The grievance of the petitioners is against the order dated 08.04.2013 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the District
Screening Committee for Provincialisation of Madrassas of Hailakandi district, by which a conclusion was arrived at that the petitioners were found
not to be working in the concerned Madrassas at the time of inspection, which was also supported by the statement of the local people and as well
as the Madrassa records and further that they were discharging their services during the year 1996-1998 when they had resigned from their
services from the respective posts.
Ms. SB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners dispute the aforesaid conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the
District Screening Committee by stating that it is in fact the petitioners who were working in the concerned Madrassa, but at the time when the
process for provincialisation was initiated, the Superintendent had incorrectly excluded the petitioners and had included the private respondents by
stating them to be the teachers working in the Madrassas. A further statement is also made that the respondents are the close relations of the
Superintendent, and, therefore, their names were included in a fraudulent manner.
Ms. SB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the earlier enquiry report by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hailakandi
which was conducted as required by the order dated 15.03.2008 of this Court in WP(C)No.5122/2008. As per the said enquiry report of the
Assistant Settlement Officer, all the four petitioners were stated to have been working in the Madrassa since 1993 and that they have continued up
to 2004. But in the year 2004 when the authorities had submitted the list of teachers to the Government of Assam, the names of the four petitioners
were deleted and the names of some other persons were sent.
As two conflicting enquiry reports appear on record of which, one goes in favour of the petitioners indicating that they were in service at the time
when the process for provincialisation was initiated and the other which indicates that they had discontinued from service and in their place some
other persons were appointed, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be appropriate
authority to decide the said dispute.
Further as per the judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed in WP(C)No.4612/2011 and other writ petitions, this Court was of the view
that in respect of such disputed question of facts as regards the service conditions of the Teachers in the Venture Educational Institutions, the
appropriate remedy would be to constitute an Educational Tribunal district wise and that it would be more appropriate for the Educational
Tribunals to decide such disputes. Accordingly, as per Notification dated 31.02.2015, Educational Tribunals have been constituted in various
districts, including the Hailakandi district.
In view of the above, and as agreed to by the parties, this writ petition is closed by requiring the petitioners to approach the Educational Tribunal
of Hailakandi district to ventilate their grievances raised in this writ petition. Upon such grievance being raised, the Education Tribunal shall take
evidence on the matter from both the parties and arrive at a conclusion as to whether it was the writ petitioners, who were continuing as Teachers
of Mubeswar Ali Memorial Senior Madrassa Bandukmara, Hailakandi at the time when the process of Provincialisation was initiated or it was the
private respondents Nos. 6 and 11 to 14.
Upon such exercise being undertaken, the learned Tribunal shall arrive at a conclusion and in the event, the order of the Tribunal goes in favour
of the writ petitioners consequential action shall be taken by the State respondent authorities in the Education Department including the claim of the
petitioner for provincialisation.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.