Abbas Ali Ahmed v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010235382023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6329/2023o ABBASoALIoAHMEDo S/O-oLATEoMANGOLoALI,oVILLAGE-oPAHUMARA,o PO-oPAHUMARA,oDIST.-oBARPETA,oASSAM-o781308. oooooooooooooooooooVERSUSo 1:oTHEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSoREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoPRINCIPALo SECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oSECONDARYoEDUCATIONo DEPARTMENT,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-06. 2:THEoDIRECTORoOFoSECONDARYoEDUCATION ASSAMoKAHILIPARAoGUWAHATI-19. 3:THEoINSPECTORoOFoSCHOOLS BARPETAoDISTRICToCIRCLEoBARPETAoASSAMoPIN-o784509. 4:THEoPRINCIPAL,oSR.oSECONDARYoSCHOOL GANDHIGAONoBARPETAoASSAM-o781309o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMDoSoHOQUEo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oSC,oSEC.oEDU.oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLE0MR.0JUSTICE0N.0UNNI0KRISHNAN0NAIR ORDERo Dateo:oo10-01-2024 Heard;Mr.;S.;Hoque,;learned;counsel;for;the;petitioner.;Also;heard;Mr. U. ; Sarma, ; learned ; standing ; counsel, ; Education ; (Secondary) ; Department, representing;the;respondent;Nos.1,;2;&;3.; Page No.# 2/6 Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed today, notice upon the respondent No.4 is not considered necessary. As agreed to by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to the speaking order dated 20.04.2022 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, by which his claim for provincialisation of services was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the provisions of Section 3(1)(vii) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (for short, "2017 Act"), in as much as only 4(four) students had appeared for the HSSLC Examination conducted by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council in the year 2016. The petitioner was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in Economics in Ratnadhip Senior Secondary School, Barpeta on 10.08.2003. Thereafter, he had joined his services on 16.08.2003 and is continuing in the said capacity till date. The cases of all the teaching and non-teaching staff of Ratnadhip Senior Secondary School, Barpeta was taken up for consideration for provincialisation of their services under the provisions of the 2017 Act and accordingly, vide order dated 04.02.2021, the services of the eligible teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school came to be provincialised. However, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for such provincialisation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C) No.5060/2021 and this Court, vide order dated 30.09.2021, disposed of the said writ petition holding that the petitioner Page No.# 3/6 fulfilled the requirements of Section 3(1)(vii) of the 2017 Act and accordingly remanded the matter to the Director of Secondary Education to arrive at a factual conclusion as to whether the petitioner was working in the school continuously and whether the subject Economics had more than 10(ten) students appearing in the last final examination and if the factual determination in respect of both the aforesaid aspects were in favour of the petitioner, to pass appropriate orders for provincialisation of the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Director of Secondary Education, vide order dated 12.04.2022, on consideration of the case of the petitioner arrived at a conclusion that as only 4(four) students had appeared against the subject Economics in HSSLC Examination held in the year 2016, the petitioner had not fulfilled the requirements of Section 3(1)(vii) of the 2017 Act and as such, it was held that the service of the petitioner could not be provincialised. Hence, this writ petition. The provision of Section 3(1)(vii) of the 2017 Act being of relevant, is extracted herein below: "Section 3(1)(vii): In addition to the provision under clause (v) above, at least 10 students must have appeared in the last final examination in any subject in case of Venture High School, Venture High Madrassa, or Venture Higher Secondary School or Venture Junior College. At least 15 students in any subject must have appeared in case of Venture Degree College in the last final Examination." The controversy in the present case is only with regard to the meaning which can be assigned to the expression "last final examination" as appearing in the provision of Section 3(1)(vii) of the 2017 Act. The respondents have construed the meaning of the expression "last final examination" to be the HSSLC Final examination held in the year 2016, whereas, according to the Page No.# 4/6 petitioner, the expression "last final examination" refers to the HSSLC Final examination held in the year 2017. The above issue is no longer res-integra in as much as this Court, vide order dated 19.09.2023, passed in WP(C) No.730/2023 (Jachimuddin Chowdhury -Vs-State of Assam & Ors.), had considered the said issue and decided as follows: "12. The rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. The relevant provision of law has already been extracted above. The controversy in this case is only with regard to the meaning which can be assigned to the expression "last final Examination". The expression used namely "last final Examination" is not qualified by any other provision which may give the Department to contend that it is the examination held in the previous year. When the statute in question is plainly worded, there is no scope to give any other meaning than the one which appears from a plain reading of the statute. Under the principles of interpretation of statute, it is the plain meaning which is required to be taken into consideration unless such plain reading does not make any reasonable construction. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the examination of the Higher Secondary Examination of the year 2017 was held between February, 2017 to March, 2017 and the expression used in the statute is with regard to appearance of at least 10 students. The Department has not disputed the data produced in this case with regard to the number of students which have been projected to be 13.

¶13Under those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that denial of the benefit of provincialisation of service by giving an incorrect meaning to the provisions of law is not at all justified." In view of the said decision rendered by this Court in the case of Jachimuddin Chowdhury (supra), the facts in the present case is being considered. It is an admitted position that in the year 2016, the enrollment position of the students in the subject Economics in Ratnadhip Senior Secondary Page No.# 5/6 School, Barpeta was 4(four). However, it is on record that in the year 2017, the number of students appearing in the subject Economics in the last final examination, i.e. HSSLC Final Examination of 2017, was 10(ten) and all the 10(ten) candidates had passed the said examination. In that view of the matter and the meaning given to the expression "last final examination" in the case of Jachimuddin Chowdhury (supra), it is hereby held that the petitioner has fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of Section 3(1)(vii) of the 2017 Act and accordingly, the petitioner is eligible for provincialisation of his services. Above being the position, the speaking order dated 20.04.2022 cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is hereby set aside. This writ petition now stands disposed of by directing the respondent No.2, i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to verify the contention of the petitioner that in the HSSLC Final Examination, 2017 against the subject Economics, 10(ten) students had appeared in the examination. In the event, on verification of the said fact if it is found that 10(ten) or more students had appeared in the subject Economics in the HSSLC Final Examination of 2017 from Ratnadhip Senior Secondary School, Barpeta, the respondent No.2, viz. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, shall pass appropriate orders for provincialisation of the services of the petitioner and such provincialisation shall be effected w.e.f. 01.01.2021, as was done in respect of other teaching and non-teaching staff of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Senior Secondary School, Barpeta. The exercise as required hereinabove, be initiated and completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As regards the claim for salaries for the period, the petitioner, if so Page No.# 6/6 advised, may file appropriate application before the competent authority which may be considered in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. J U D G E Comparing Assistant