Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010151102023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4264/2023 UDDAV BORAH SON OF SRI TILESWAR BORA, VILLAGE- JONAKI PATHAR, P.O. AND P.S.- URIAMGHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785601. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE MISSION DIRECTOR RASTRIYA MADHYAMIK SIKSHA ABHIJAN (RMSA) KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019. 3:THE PROJECT HEAD DOWN TOWN CHARITY TRUST 7TH FLOOR 3RD BUILDING DOWN TOWN HOSPITAL COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:MISSION DIRECTOR SAMAGRA SIKSHA ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. Page No.# 2/5 5:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019. 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT CIRCLE KARBI ANGLONG PIN- 782460. 7:THE PRINCIPAL BALIPATHAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL P.O.- BALIPATHAR VIA- DHONSIRI DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782470. 8:MANAI SINGNARPI NEWLY ENGAGED VOCATIONAL TRAINER IN HEALTH CARE BALIPATHAR H.S. SCHOOL BOKAJAN KARBI ANGLONG PIN- 782470 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA, MR N SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MS E CHOUDHURY (R-3),MR. M GOGOI (R- 3),MR. N DEKA (R-3),SC, SSA,SC, RMSA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 27.01.2025 1. Heard Mr.A.Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Also heard Mr. U.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Mr. P.Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Page No.# 3/5 2. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as a Vocational Trainer (Health Care) vide order dated 01.04.2017, issued by the Down Town Charity Trust, an outsourcing agency for implementation of a centrally sponsored scheme namely, the National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF) in the State of Assam under the Rastriya Madhaymik Siksha Abhijan (RMSA). The petitioner was posted by the Down Town Charity Trust at Balipathar H.S.School, Bokajan, Karbin Anglong. In this regard, the petitioner also signed an agreement with the Down Town Charity Trust and discharged his duty. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Down Town Charity Trust (respondent No.3) issued a letter dated 18.04.2023, intimating the Principal of the Balipathar H.S.School, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong that the contractual engagement of the petitioner would not be reviewed and a new person would be appointed in the school on the ground of alleged poor performance of the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has not been paid his salary for the month of April and May, 2023. He submits that accordingly a direction should be issued to the respondent No.3 to make payment for the two months i.e. April and May, 2023. 4. Mr. M.Gogoi, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand submits, that the petitioner‘s contract with the respondent No.3 expired on 28.02.2023 and the petitioner could not have worked beyond the said date. However, due to oversight, the petitioner worked in the school till 31.03.2023 and was accordingly paid his salary for the month of March 2023. He submits that petitioner’s contract was not extended beyond March, 2023 and as such, there is no question of payment of salary to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The facts of the case clearly show that respondent No. 3 is not a State under the Article 12 of the Constitution and is a private body. As such, the claim of the petitioner is a private matter, involving two private bodies. For a better understanding of the case, regarding the issue of whether the service of the petitioner was extended beyond his contract period, the letter dated 18.04.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 is reproduced herein below: “With respect to the subject cited above, we do hereby intimate you that the Contractual engagement of Vocational Trainer under down town Charity Trust had completed on 31st March, 2023. The renewal process of contractual engagement is in process. However, the Vocational Trainer namely Mr. Udhav Bora had shown very poor performance in the last academic year. Moreover, he also denied and disobeyed the rules set for Page No.# 4/5 renewal process. Therefore, his engagement with down town Charity Trust will not be renewed and he is no longer associated with down two Charity Trust. Hence, we do hereby request you to kindly not allow him to engage in your school for any activity. Further, we assure you that within a very short period we will engage a new vocational trainer in your school as our recruitment process is going on. This is for your intimation, support and cooperation.” 7. The above letter dated 18.04.2023 issued by the respondent No. 3 has been admitted by both the parties and a perusal of the same clearly shows that the contractual service of the petitioner had not been extended beyond 31.03.2023, though a process for the same had been initiated. 8. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 shows that an agreement had been executed between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner on 27.09.2021, which was valid till 28.02.2022. Thereafter, the agreement was extended for eleven months from 01.04.2022 to 28.02.2023. There is nothing produced by the petitioner or the respondent No.3, to show the extension of the agreement between the parties beyond February, 2023. However, as submitted by the respondents’ counsel that there was inadvertent error in engaging the services of the petitioner for the month of March, 2023, an additional payment for one month had been made by the respondent No.3. 9. Though the petitioner has taken a stand that the petitioner had worked for the respondent No.3 beyond March, 2023, the denial of the same by the respondent No. 3 goes to show that the same is a disputed question of fact. Accordingly this court is of the view that the petitioner would have to adduce evidence with regard to his claim for salary for April/May, 2023, for which he would have to approach the civil court. Besides, the present case is a case for recovery of money involving two private bodies 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, in view of the fact that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, by approaching the civil court. 11. Registry to place the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 in the record. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant