Bhaskar Kumar Das vs State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 being the

authorities under the Secondary Education Department, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 being the authorities

under the Education Department of the BTC.

Issue notice, returnable in 2 (two) weeks. Extra copies be furnished within three days. The petitioner to take steps on the respondents No.4 and 5

by registered post with A/D within three days. The petitioner is also allowed to serve dasti service on the respondents No. 4 and 5.

By the order dated 29.12.2016 of the Director of Education, BTC, the respondent No.4 Satish Sarma was allowed to be the In-Charge Principal of

Dakhin Bijni Adharsha Vidyapith Higher Secondary School. The said order was assailed by the writ petitioner Bhaskar Kumar Das in WP(C)

378/2017, wherein, the order dated 25.01.2017 was passed staying the order dated 29.12.2016 by which Sataish Sarma was allowed to be the In-

Charge Principal of the school. Consequent thereto, the order dated 06.03.2017 was passed by the Inspector of School, Mushalpur by which the

petitioner was allowed to be the academic In-Charge of the school. It is stated that the petitioner had continued to be the In-Charge Principal of the

school. While the petitioner continued as the In-Charge Principal of the school, an order dated 11.02.2020 was passed by the Director of Education,

BTC, whereby some other order dated 20.02.2017 stood modified and another teacher Sailendra Nath Kakati was allowed to hold temporary charge

as the Principal of the school. The order dated 11.02.2020 was assailed by another teacher Chandana Mahanta in WP(C) 1935/2020 and by the order

dated 13.03.2020 the order dated 11.02.2020 allowing Sailendra Nath Kakoti to be the In-Charge Principal was stayed.

In the circumstance, we have two interim orders of this Court one dated 25.01.2017 in WP(C) 378/2017 and the other dated 13.03.2020 in WP(C)

1935/2020. After the interim order dated 13.03.2020 in WP(C)1935/2020, the order impugned in this petition dated 28.06.2021 was passed by the

Director of BTC by which Chandana Mahanta is allowed to be the In-Charge Principal of the school. In other words, we have to construe that being

the beneficiary of the earlier interim order dated 25.01.2017 in WP(C) 378/2017 it is the writ petitioner who is the In-Charge Principal of the school by

virtue of the order dated 06.03.2017. On the other hand, being the beneficiary of the interim order dated 13.03.2020 in WP(C) 1935/2020 by the order

impugned, it is Chandana Mahanta who is now holding the In-Charge Principal of the school.

The two writ petitions referred above appears to be connected. We are in a situation where there are two parallel writ proceedings going on

between two different parties and by virtue of the respective interim orders the two different persons are now claiming to be the In-Charge Principal

of the school.

In the resultant situation, it is stated that all such writ petitions are pending, awaiting final adjudication.

In the circumstance, we direct that this petition be now listed along with WP(C) 378/2017 and WP(C) 1935/2020. In the meantime as the present

petitioner is the In-Charge of the School who had continued since 06.03.2017 , we provide that till the next returnable date, the writ petitioner shall

discharge the duties as In-Charge Principal of the school.

Further consideration would be made after all the writ petitions are listed and the respective parties appear.

List after two weeks.