AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education
Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None appears for respondent Nos.5 to 9.
The writ petitioners herein, numbering 9 in total, are working as GraduateTeachers in the various Higher Secondary Schools situated in the districts
of Cachar and Hailakandi headed by the respondent Nos.5 to 9 as Principals. The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that with a view to tide over
the crisis of Postgraduate Teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools the Government of Assam had issued Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2012
directing the Graduate Teachers with postgraduate degrees to teach in the Classes XI and XII as Subject Teachers in their relevant subjects and
considering the fact that the writ petitioners are all postgraduate degree holders, they have been made to teach the students of Classes XI and XII.
Since the responsibility to teach the students of Classes XI and XII is of the Postgraduate Teachers, hence, the petitioners have claimed the pay scale
of Postgraduate Teachers for the period from 19.05.2012 and also a further direction from this Court to regularly adjust them against the vacant posts
of Postgraduate Teachers (Subject Teachers).
By filing counter affidavit the department has taken a stand that after theenactment of the Right to Education Act, 2009 Class-VIII has been
detached from the Secondary School as a result of which the High Schools have been reduced to only two classes i.e. Classes-IX and X thereby
reducing the workload of Graduate Teachers. It is also the stand of the respondents that in the absence of TET qualification, no teacher can be
appointed as Postgraduate Teachers in the Higher Secondary Schools since the Rules do not permit the same. The official respondents have also
stated that steps have already been initiated to fill up all vacant posts of Subject Teachers, hence, the involvement of the Graduate Teachers in the
matter is purely temporary in nature.
Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has alsoinvited the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by
the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4702/2012 [Md. Ismail Hussain and 3 others vs. The State of Assam and others] to contend that the same
issue has been considered by this Court in the earlier writ petition and the similar prayer made by the petitioners therein was rejected by the learned
Single Judge. As such, Mr. Deka submits that this writ petition is covered by the order dated 14.09.2017.
Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners, has also fairly submitted thatthe case of his clients would stand covered by the order dated
14.09.2017 passed by this Court.
From a careful scrutiny of the record I find that WP(C) No.4702/2012 waspreferred by a few Graduate Teachers assailing the Office
Memorandum dated 19.05.2012. However, by way of an alternate prayer, the petitioners therein had also claimed the pay scale of Postgraduate
Teachers with effect from 19.05.2012 on account of the fact that they were being made to teach the students of Classes-XI and XIIÂ in the Higher
Secondary Schools. Rejecting the said plea of the petitioners, this Court had passed the order dated 14.09.2017 by making the following observations :-
“8.      Teaching is a noble profession and not much distinction can be made amongst the school teachers by referring to the classes
where their services are utilised. The burden on a teacher, irrespective of the class in which his/her service is utilized, is substantially similar and the
work load for teaching in higher classes, cannot be considered to be more burdensome than for teaching, in the lower classes. As long as the utilization
of service is made on a rational basis, without putting extra burden on the Graduate Teachers with higher qualification, the claim for up-gradation or
higher remuneration can have no legal force. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are made to serve for longer hours, as compared to the
Graduate Teachers without the Post Graduate qualification. Therefore, the claim for up-gradation or extra remuneration, is not found to be merited.
That apart, the respondents have already taken steps to fill up the vacant posts of Subject Teachers and this is likely to result in lessening the
workload for the petitioners. But even then there could be a situation, where a particular teacher may be more in demand for the secondary level
classes, whereas a Subject Teacher may suffer in comparison. Such exigencies will have to be addressed appropriately by the Principal in better
interest of the school and the students. But so long as the workload is not discriminatory and the teaching is within the school hours, the requirement to
teaching higher secondary level students by the petitioners, cannot be a matter of intervention by the Court.
In my considered opinion, the O.M. dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure-2), is not burdensome and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court does
not feel that any discrimination is caused, by deployment of qualified graduate teachers to teach the higher secondary level students. Thus, the writ
petition is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.â€
From a careful reading of the order dated 14.09.2017 I am of the view that theissue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the aforesaid
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in WP(C) No.4702/2012. As such, there is no scope for granting any relief to the
petitioners in the present petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
  There would be no order as to cost.