GUWAHATI, India, March 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 30:
1. Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the respondents in Elementary Education Department and Ms. B. Bora, learned standing counsel for respondents in Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), in WP(C) Nos. 7226/2019, 1413/2024, 1428/2024, 1449/2024 and 1462/2024.
2. In all these five petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order, dated 12.06.2019, passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam with further prayer for issuing direction to the respondentauthorities, more specifically the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to modify the earlier orders of provincialising the services of the petitioners and to pass fresh orders, giving effect to the provincialisation of the services of the petitioners, with effect from 1991, when other similarly situated M.E schools had been brought under the scheme of provincialisation in terms of the policy guidelines laid down in notification, dated 05.10.1993, and further to direct the respondent- authorities to grant all service benefits, including pensionary benefits available to the petitioners, consequent to such provincialisation of similarly situated M.E. Schools, with effect from 1990-91, as may be applicable to the petitioners in terms of the service conditions, governing their employment, when the exercise of provincialisation was first carried out at that time.
3. Notably, vide impugned order, dated 12.06.2019, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam has rejected the claim of the petitioners, for giving effect to the provincialisation of the services of the petitioners, with effect from 1991 and also to grant all service benefits, including pensionary benefits, available to the petitioners consequent to such provincialisation of similarly situated M.E. Schools, with effect from 1990-91.
4. As the issue involved in these batch of petitions are same and the relief(s) claimed and the respondents are also almost same, though however, the petitioners are different, but they are similarly situated, and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to dispose of these batch of petitions by this common judgment and order. Background facts:- 5. The background facts leading to filing of the present five petitions, being WP(C)/7226/2019, WP(C)/1413/2024, WP(C)/1428/ 2024, WP(C)/1449/2024, and WP(C)/1462/2024, are almost the same and are briefly stated as under:-
"The petitioners in WP(C) No. 1413/2024, WP(C)/1428/2024, WP(C)/1449/2024, WP(C)/1462/2024 and the teachers of petitioner's school in WP(C) No. 7226/2019 were qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teachers and they were selected and appointed as Assistant Teachers in their respective schools, between 1985-87, which established as venture schools that were recognized between 1990-91, by the respondent authorities. And of the 6 teachers of the petitioner's school in WP(C) No. 7226/2019, three have since been retired and the other three teachers are on the verge of superannuation. In the year 1991, the Government of Assam took a policy decision to provincialise the services of both teaching as well as non-teaching staff of 1255 numbers of Middle Schools (500 in the 1st phase & 755 in the second phase) against the posts created and retained by the Govt. in 1991. These 1255 numbers of schools covered those schools which were recognized between 1983 and 1991.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WucU0XXoJV%2BDZBa56tYi2%2BgfiRsZUhKIwfJmqti8CXrS&caseno=WP(C)/7226/2019&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010230492019&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
