AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.Heard Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Also heard
Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel representing the Finance Department i.e. Respondent No.3.
The petitioner who is serving as a Lecturer in Arabic at Pathsala Mahavidyalaya (Junior) claims regularization in service on the strength of the
Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 issued by the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department.
Petitioner was appointed as Arabic Teacher on 25.08.2013, following resolution adopted by the Governing Body of Pathsala Mahavidyalaya (Junior)
in the meeting dated 09.10.2013. The said appointment came about following the termination of the earlier incumbent, one Md. Bahadur Ali.
Whether the benefit of regularization in service in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 and/or under the provisions of the Assam
Junior Colleges (Provincialization) Act, 2012 (in short, “the Act of 2012â€) can be extended to the petitioner is primarily the point for determination
in the present case.
The Respondent No.2 i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam has filed affidavit-in-opposition taking a stand that the petitioner cannot
consider himself to be a dropped Lecturer as he had joined the institution after long 13(thirteen) years from the date when the college was brought
under the deficit system of grants-in-aid. Further, in terms of Section 3 read with the Schedule thereof as well as in terms of the Office Memorandum
dated 02.03.2016, the petitioner not being a person appointed prior to 01.02.2001 is not entitled to claim regularization in service.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record.
Section 3 of the aforesaid Act of 2012 envisages that all existing employees, both teaching and non-teaching of the Junior Colleges as specified in
the Schedule appended to the Act, shall be deemed to have been provincialised and become employees of the State Government on and from the date
on which the Junior Colleges were brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid. As per the Schedule appended to the Act, Sl. No.3 mentions the
name of Pathsala Mahavidyalaya (Junior) and the date i.e. 01.02.2001 is recorded as the date of the college coming under the deficit system of
grants-in-aid. The Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 also clearly mentions to the effect that only the Teachers (Lecturers) who were appointed
before 01.02.2001 in respect of the 48 Junior Colleges (Pathsala Mahavidyalaya (Junior) being one among the 48 Junior Colleges) will be regularized
subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Clearly, the petitioner herein was appointed on 25.08.2013 and does not come within the purview of the
Teachers (Lecturers) mentioned in clause 6 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016.
On plain reading of Section 3 of the Act of 2012 read with the Schedule thereof and that of the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016, I am of the
firm opinion that the relief claimed by the petitioner for regularization of service cannot be granted. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the
writ petition and the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.