Mahendri Das (Smt.) vs State of Assam and Others

D.N. Chowdhury, J.—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a direction either promoting the Petitioner to a higher post or upgrading her service conditions and the writ petition has arisen in the following circumstances.

Petitioner, Smt. Mahendri Das, was appointed as a chowkidar in the Rangia Senior Basic School which is a Grade IV post and has been working in the said post since the year 1992. That while working as such, the Petitioner passed the HSLC examination in the year 1994 and thereby acquired the qualification for appointment in Grade III post and promotion to the next higher post. The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents/authorities in a most obdurate fashion failed in its duty to fulfil its duties and responsibilities in promoting her to the next higher post or to entrust her with responsibility commensurate with her qualification. From the materials on record, it transpires that the Petitioner moved the authority from time to time for upgrading her to any Grade III post. The D.I. Schools who is the immediate higher authority, forwarded the said application of the Petitioner to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide his communication bearing No. 362 dated 18.1.95 On receipt of the communication dated 18.1.95, the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide his communication bearing No. FAA. 56/95/10 dated 23.5.95, asked the D.I. of Schools, Rangia, to consider the case of the Petitioner as per existing Government rules and procedures. By Anr. communication bearing No. EAA. 53/95/21 dated 17th October, 1995, the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Assam, conveyed the direction of the Director to the D.I. of Schools, Rangia, to place the case of the Petitioner before the Advisory Board for taking necessary action as per Government rules and procedures. The Petitioner thereafter moved the authority personally, made oral submissions before them and failing to get any remedy/relief, has moved this Court by way of this writ petition.

Heard Mr. D.C. Kath Hazarika, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who has submitted that the Petitioner is languishing in the same post without being considered for promotion to any higher post, which are itself is discriminatory and violative of the principles of equality of opportunities.

Mrs. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the State/Respondents, has submitted that there is no scope for further promotion of the Petitioner to any higher post in the LP School. The learned Govt. Advocate pointed out that under the Recruitment Rules, an LP school teacher is to be appointed by resorting to the methods as prescribed by the Rules; further, there is no other higher post in the LP school in which a chowkidar may be appointed/promoted. Further, that there is no requirement for any Ministerial officer in the LP school. Referring to the case of Shri Seraj Ali Ahmed, who was a chowkidar and who subsequently was promoted to the post of L.P. school teacher, Mrs Bhattacharjee submitted that the said appointment was made subsequent to selection by the Advisory board.

Mr. H.N. Sarma, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, who was present in the Court. also addressed the Court on the matter. Mr. Sarma referring to the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 submitted that as per the Rules, there is no provision for direct selection for appointment/promotion to the post of L.P. school teacher.

From the facts narrated above, it appears that the Petitioner''s case though reached the Respondent/authorities for consideration, till now, no fruitful action has so far been taken. The Petitioner is holding the post since 1992, She is working in the same post without any room for promotion, whereby itself is demoralising for an employee. The Respondents though took-up the matter from time to time, but could not address itself to the core of the matter for resolving the situation. During this period, instance of shuttling or file from one office to Anr. , the Respondent/authorities could have evolved a scheme for consideration of case of the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons, for promotion to higher posts or for appointment as L.P. School teachers. The Rules, 1977 prescribes HSLC examination passed or any other equivalent examination as the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of L.P. school Junior Basic School teachers. Further, though the Rules, 1977 prescribed the age limit for recruitment to the post such teachers, it also provide for relaxation of the rules.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, even without waiting for amendment of the Rules, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the Respondents/authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment as a teacher under the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provicialisation) Rules, 1977 by relaxing her age taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances which demand relaxation of consideration in a just and equitable manner. The Petitioner has already earned the eligibility for being appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in L.P. School/Jr Basic School as per the provisions of the Rules, 1977.

On consideration of all the aspects of the matter I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if a direction is issued to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for being appointed as an Asstt. Teacher against an vacancy in any elementary School in the next selection process which, as stated at the bar, is in the offing.

Accordingly, the DI of Schools, Rangia who is also the Secretary of the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board shall initiate the process for placing the case of the Petitioner before the Board in the next selection. The Petitioner is accordingly, directed to make appropriate application along with a certified copy of this order for consideration of her case for appointment as an Asstt. Teacher in any elementary school. The D.I. of Schools shall forward the application for condonation of the age of the Petitioner, to be filed by the Petitioner, with appropriate notice to the concerned authority and to the head of the selection committee and thereafter take-up her case for appointment before the Advisory board for selection. In addition, it will also be open for the Respondents to take any other measure for upgrading the service of the Petitioner to a higher grade.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.