SYED FARUK HUSSAIN KHAN vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

1.Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education

Department.

The petitioner claims to have been appointed by the Managing Committee of Bhogpur M.E. Madrassa on 15.01.1998 and since then serving the

school. But when the school was provincialised in the year 1991, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of teachers so provincialised.

Consequently, a grievance was raised by the petitioner at various stages, which ultimately culminated in the communication dated 09.02.2015 of the

Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department. The said communication states as follows:-

“The matter of Syed Faruk Hussain Khan of Bhogpur M.E. Madrassa was placed before the committee. The Committee finds that the name of

the petitioner was not listed in the Detail Particular submitted at the time of provincialisation of the school. Therefore his name was not recommended

by the High Power Committee as dropped teacher of the school.â€​

From the communication, the only reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation as a dropped teacher is that the High Power

Committee found his name to be not included in the detailed particulars submitted at the time of provincialisation of the school.

A prima facie reading would indicate that the petitioner’s service was not provincialised because his name was not included in the detailed

particular, but the same cannot be a reason not to consider him as a dropped teacher.

Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel seeks to explain the aforesaid by stating that only the teachers who were working at that relevant point of

time are included in the detailed particular submitted by the authorities and as the petitioner was perhaps not working therefore, his name was not

included in the said detailed particular.

The said may be a plausible explanation as to why the case of the petitioner was rejected, but such reasons not being incorporated in the

communication dated 09.02.2015, the Court cannot take cognizance of it. The submission of Mr. N. Sarma can at the best be said to be providing for a

reason for the action of the authorities at a subsequent stage when the proceeding had reached the stage of an adjudication in a Court of law.

Such method is impermissible under law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph-21 of Mohinder Sigh Gill and Ors. â€"Vs- the Chief Election

Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405.

Accordingly, the communication dated 09.02.2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities to consider the case of

the petitioner for provincialisation as a dropped teacher and in doing so, appropriate reason thereof be stated either for accepting or rejecting such

claim. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.