Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010115022023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/199/2023 TAMIZUDDIN AHMED S/O- LT. ABDUL ALI, R/O- VILL- GARBHITOR, P.O. DHAMDHAMA, P.S. BARAMA, DIST.- BAKSA, BTC (BTR), ASSAM, PIN- 781349. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPT. (ELEMENTARY) DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPT. KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19. 4:THE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTR) BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR, PIN- 783370, ASSAM. 5:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTR) KOKRAJHAR, PIN- 783370, ASSAM. 6:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY B.T.C. (BTR) KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370. 7:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BAKSA DISTRICT CIRCLE BAKSA (BTR) Page No.# 2/5 MUSHALPUR, PIN- 781372. 8:THE HEADMASTER GARBHITOR HIGH SCHOOL P.O. NIZDHAMDHAMA PIN- 781349, DIST.- BAKSA BTAD (BTR), ASSAM For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Choudhury, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. K. Das, SC, Elementary Education Ms. R. B. Bora, SC, BTC – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 21.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1244/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The appellant approached the writ court challenging the validity of the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council (hereinafter to be referred as “BTC”), whereby the claim of the appellant for regularisation of his services as Assistant Teacher in 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School was rejected. 3. As per the appellant, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School on 07.02.1986 by the Managing Committee of the said L.P. School, on honorary basis. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that during an inspection, the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Page No.# 3/5 Barama Education Block, found the appellant serving in the said L.P. School and the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, wrote to the Director of Education, BTC, for creation of additional post of teacher in the said school to accommodate the appellant in the said L.P. School. However, the said recommendation made by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari has not been carried out. Later on, the L.P. School in which the appellant was serving as a teacher, was amalgamated with the Garbhitor High School, but despite that no relief was granted to the appellant. 4. Later on, on a representation submitted by the appellant, the Inspector of Schools, Baksa District Circle, Mushalpur, recommended to the Director of Education, BTC, for provincialisation of the services of the appellant. However, the Director of Education, BTC, rejected the said claim of the appellant vide order dated 15.03.2022. Assailing the said rejection order dated 15.03.2022, the appellant preferred a writ before the Single Bench. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has dismissed the writ petition while observing as under: “17. The Court in the case of Jahangir Alam and Others -Vs- State of Assam and Others reported in 2003 (3) GLT 544 decided on 29.09.2003 have held that the relevant Rules, namely, the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 as well as the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 1982 specifically provides for appointment of Assistant Teachers in provincialised L.P. school of the State by following the procedure of Direct Recruitment after advertisement and selection, following the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that after provincialisation of any such school, honorary Teachers appointed by the Managing Committee of such provincialised schools cannot be regularized, since statutory provincialisation Rules, namely, the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 as well as the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 1982 does not empower the Managing Committee to appoint any such Teacher in a provincialised school. 18. As such, even if it is assumed that a person has rendered a long period of service by way of such appointment issued by the Managing Committee of the School in violation of the statutory recruitment Rules in force, his/her service Page No.# 4/5 cannot be regularized, since the incumbent appointed in such manner does not have any legal right for regularization. 19. Considering the above and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jahangir Alam (supra) and as it is found that the petitioner was appointed by the President of the Managing Committee of the 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School, after the school was provincialised in the year 1977 under the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 and the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, though the petitioner has rendered his service since 1986 as an honorary Assistant Teacher in 575 No. Garbhitor Moktab Lower Primary School, which has now been amalgamated with Garbhitor High School, his service cannot be considered for regularization, as the appointment of the petitioner is found to be illegal being made in violation of the provisions of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, without any advertisement and selection in a provincialised school of the State. 20. Considering the above, the communication of the Director of Education, BTC under No. DE/BTC/Apptt-257/Pt-I/2017/751 dated 03.12.2021 as well as the impugned Speaking Order under No. DE/BTC/Apptt-257/Pt-I/2017/795 dated 15.03.2022 does not call for any interference by this Court.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that while appointing the appellant as an Assistant Teacher in the L.P. School in the year 1986, the procedure laid down under the law for appointing a teacher had not been followed. However, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that looking to the fact that the appellant has been working as an Assistant Teacher in the said L.P. School for quite a long period, i.e. more than 35 years on honorary basis, his services are liable to be regularised. 6. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Jharkand and Others vs. Kamal Prasad and Others., reported in (2014) SCC 223 and has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying on the decision rendered in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, has held that working on ad hoc basis for a quite long period is a good ground for regularisation of services. Page No.# 5/5 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the material available on record, particularly, taking into consideration the fact that the initial appointment of the appellant on the post of Assistant Teacher was in violation of the procedure laid down under the law and his appointment, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Jahangir Alam and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2003 (3) GLT 544, is liable to be treated in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to interfere with the order passed by the Director of Education, BTC, whereby the claim of the appellant for regularisation of his services as Assistant Teacher has been rejected. 8. So far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Jharkhand (supra) is concerned, the said decision is of no help to the appellant, because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has never intended that an illegal appointment made in violation of the procedure laid down under the law is also liable to be regularised. 9. In view of the above discussion, this writ appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant