AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 Ajit Singh, CJ.
Mr.MU Mahmud and Ms.C Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by
Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Ms.P Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education
Department for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Petitioner No.1 is President and Member of some local committees. Petitioner No.2 claims himself to be a social worker. In the present Public
Interest Litigation, their target is Respondent No.1, who is posted as District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj. According to the petitioners,
despite Respondent No.1 having been transferred to another District Dhemaji, vide order dated 29.12.2017, he is illegally being allowed to continue at
Karimganj. The petitioners have also alleged that Respondent No.1 is involved in corruption and a criminal case has been registered against him at
Police Station Karimganj for offences under Sections 448,353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On these allegations, the petitioners have prayed for
an enquiry into the matter.
The State Government, in reply, has averred that vide order dated 15.11.2017, Respondent No.1 was given additional charge of District Elementary
Education Officer. In the result, vide order dated 16.12.2017, Arup Kumar Brahma, the then District Elementary Education Officer, was directed to
be relieved. Arup Kumar Brahma protested against his relieving from the charge of District Elementary Education Officer and very reluctantly
handed over the charge to Respondent No.1 on 21.11.2017. And, on the same day, he also lodged one First Information Report against Respondent
No.1 at Police Station Karimganj for offences under Sections 448, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.1 then had to apply for bail,
which was allowed by the Sessions Court, vide order dated 21.12.2017. The State has also averred that although vide order dated 29.12.2017,
Respondent No.1 was transferred to Dhemaji, he could not be relieved because of the work of NRC assigned to him. Not only this, the allegations
made against Respondent No.1 was enquired by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who, in his report dated 6.2.2018 (Annexure-4), found the
same to be false. The State has further stated that vide order dated 31.3.2018, the transfer of Respondent No.1 to Dhemaji has also been cancelled.
According to the State Government, the petitioners have filed the present public interest litigation with an ulterior motive because Arup Kumar
Brahma from whom charge of District Elementary Education Officer was withdrawn and handed over to Respondent No.1 is a close relative of
Petitioner No.2.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the present petition does not really relate to any public interest and the same
has been filed with ulterior motives. As seen above, the allegations made against Respondent No.1, on enquiry, have been found to be false. It is also
not the case of petitioners that Respondent No.1 is posted in Karimganj since long. In fact, Respondent No.1 has been posted in Karimganj recently
on 15.5.2017. Apparently, the petitioners have filed this petition because charge of District Elementary Education Officer was withdrawn by the State
Government from Arup Kumar Brahma and handed over to Respondent No.1 and Arup Kumar Brahma is closely related to petitioner No.2. Also
having regard to the work of NRC assigned to Respondent No.1, the State Government in its wisdom has cancelled his transfer from Karimganj to
Dhemaji.
The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.4000/- (four thousand) payable by the petitioners. The petitioners shall deposit
the cost in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj within one month from today, failing which, the amount shall be recovered from them as
arrears of land revenue.