JAHANARA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2020-12-07. JAHANARA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/2 GAHC010114812020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3380/2020 JAHANARA BEGUM W/O- ANSER ALI, R/O- VILL- AIRANJONGLA PART-I, P. O. A. M. CO. ROAD, DIST. - DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783323 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPTT. (ELEMENTARY), DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 3:THE DY. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) DHUBRI ASSAM 5:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DHUBRI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DIST. - DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301 6:THE HEAD MASTER PAISTY AIRANJONGLA M. E. MADRASSA VILL- AIRANJONGLA PAT-I P. O. A. M. CO. ROAD Page No. # 2/2 DIST. - DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78332 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA O R D E R 07. 12.
2020 Heard Mr. S Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B Deori, learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is a teacher in the Paisty Airanjongla ME Madrassa, seeks for a direction to the respondent authorities for provincialisation of his services as an Assistant Teacher in the school concerned. 3. Mr. B Deori, learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri has produced an instruction that the case of the petitioner was given a consideration by the District Scrutiny Committee of Dhubri district, but in the facts and circumstances stated therein the conclusion arrived was that under the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to be provincialised. 4. Consequent thereof, we do not find any further requirement to adjudicate this writ petition.
But, we require the respondents to provide the petitioner with a copy of the decision taken by the District Scrutiny Committee, Dhubri rejecting his claim for provincialisation. If the petitioner is further aggrieved, liberty remains for the petitioner to approach the Court again. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.