Gauhati High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajit Singh, C.J., addressed an intra court appeal in regard to the provincialisation of services.
The appellant joined Madrassa for the purpose of teaching 4 years after Respondent 1. The Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 was enacted to provincialise the services of the employees of the Venture Educational Institutions, and under this Act the only criteria for the provincialisation was based on the seniority of the employee. When the list was published for the same, the appellant was put in the category of “excess teacher” whereas Respondent 1 was placed in the category of “Assistant Teacher”. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the said list, and the learned Single Judge directed the Director of Secondary Education to reconsider the his categorization, and thereafter, the appellant was categorised as an Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, aggrieved Respondent 1 challenged the said order in a writ petition which was allowed by the Single Judge. Appellant has impugned the order of the Single Judge.
The Court, observed that the appeal has no merit as the contention of the appellant that the Assistant Teacher with such combination of subjects as are held by the appellant was necessary for recognition of a Madrassa, was untenable. The question of madrassa being recognised on the basis of having an assistant teacher and services being provincialised is nowhere a criteria mentioned in the regulations of 1988. Therefore, the Court stated that the holdings of the learned Single Judge have been rightly stated and provincialisation of services has nothing to do with the recognition of Madrassa. The appeal was dismissed. [Syed Mohammad Ali v. Syed Saidul Islam, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 358, order dated 08-05-2018]
