Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010009802014 2025:GAU-AS:12244 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2516/2014 MD. JULHASH UDDIN AHMED S/O MD. JAMAT ULLAH SHEIKH, VILL. SILBARI, P.O. JALABILA, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 11 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR SSA ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 5:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 7:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 8:THE DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR SSA KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 9:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER PROBATJHARA GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 10:THE HEADMASTER SILBARI SHIALKANDI LP SCHOOL P.O. JALABILA DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN-783348 11:THE PRESIDENT SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE SILBARI SHIALKANDI LP SCHOOL P.O. JALABILA DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN-783348 12:AJITA BEGUM W/O MD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN VILL. SILBARI NODAGAON P.O. JALABILA DIST- KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 3/10 BTAD ASSAM PIN-78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S BANIK, MR.S K ROY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SSA, SC, BTC,GA, ASSAM,SC, EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 08.09.2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Roi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the state respondent and Mr. B. Talukdar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Education Department. 2. None appears for the respondent SSA/respondent BTC on call. 3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought for direction to the respondent authorities to hold an enquiry as submitted in his representation dated 25.03.2014, in which certain complaint has been made against the Head Master and President of Silbari Shialkandi L. P. School about manipulation of school records to deny the petitioner the benefit of provinsialisation. 4. Apt at the outset to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 04.12.2019, passed by this court, which reads as hereunder:- “3. A brief broad narration of facts may be necessary. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed Page No.# 4/10 as an Assistant Teacher on 02.04.1997. However, in the 3rd week of March, 2014 the Headmaster and his father i.e., the President of the School Managing Committee (SMC) did not handover the attendance register of the school to the petitioner to append his signature on the attendance register by informing the petitioner that the register had been taken to the concerned office for official work. 4. The petitioner subsequently came to know from reliable sources that there has been a conspiracy between the Headmaster and his father i.e. President of the SMC to appoint one Ajita Begum, who is the wife of the elder brother of the Headmaster and daughter-in-law of the President of the SMC i.e. the respondent No.12 in place of the petitioner, in connection with which the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.03.2014 before the Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Probatjhara, Gossaigaon, Kokrajhar. 5. The petitioner also subsequently came to learnt that though the petitioner was never removed from the service of the school, his name was struck off in the revised application form for issuance/renewal of DISE Code of the school for the academic year 2013-2014 and in his place the name of the respondent No.12 was shown. 6. In the result, the name of the petitioner was not forwarded but that of the respondent No.12 for provincialisation by the school authorities. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent Nos.4, 5, 7 and 9, where in paragraph 9 thereof it has been mentioned that it has been brought to the notice of the BTC authorities that a resolution of the SMC was taken on 04.12.1999, by which the petitioner had been removed from the school and in his post the respondent No.12 had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide Resolution No.1 of the SMC in their meeting held on 01.03.2000 and there was no protest from the petitioner and it has been also mentioned that as per the reports submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Tipkai Circle, dated 24.02.2014 and 04.08.2014, the name of the petitioner is not found as a teacher of the said school, whereas the names of Afzal Hussain and Ajita Banu were found as Head Teacher and Assistant Teacher respectively and as such since the name of the petitioner was removed from the school during Page No.# 5/10 1999, his name does not find place in the revised form of DISE Code during 2013-2014. 7. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was never informed of any such resolution of the SMC taken on 04.12.1999 by which he was removed from the service of the school. According to him, in fact, no such resolution was taken nor the petitioner was informed of any such resolution and the petitioner continued to serve as the Assistant Teacher, which is clearly evident from the revised application form submitted by the Headmaster of the school, namely, Afzal Hussain for the period of 2012-2013. 8. In the said revised application form bearing No.12323, the particulars of the DISE Code of the school for the year 2011- 2012 has been indicated, in which the name of the petitioner has been shown as an Assistant Teacher with the date of joining as 01.04.1997. The said revised application form was submitted along with the Demand Draft No.272795 dated 19.12.2011. It has been submitted that this document itself clearly indicates that when the said revised application form for DISE Code for the year 2012-2013 was submitted, the petitioner was very much in service and as such the aforesaid so called resolution taken by the SMC on 04.12.1999 is a forged document. 9. It has been further submitted by the petitioner that the said Ajita Banu (respondent No.12) was never appointed on 01.03.2001 as indicated in the so called appointment order issued to her by the President of the SMC, in which it has been mentioned that in compliance of the Resolution No.Nil of the SMC meeting held on 01.03.2001, the said Ajita Banu has been appointed as Head Teacher of Silbari Shialkandi L.P. School on purely temporary basis. It has been submitted that the said order is manufactured document merely to give undue favour to the said respondent No.12 by manipulating the school documents for ulterior purposes. 10. The petitioner has also referred to the joining letter stated to have been signed by the respondent No.12 stating that she had joined as Head Teacher of the Silbari Shialkandi L.P. School on 02.03.2001 at 10.30 A.M. Accordingly, it has been submitted that all these documents have been manufactured for the benefit of the respondent No.12 by the Page No.# 6/10 school authorities in collusion with the Headmaster and the President of the SMC. 11. If the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner are true, it will portray a very sorry state of affairs prevailing in the venture school. Though no rules prohibit appointment of near relatives in a venture school, if such appointments of near relatives have been made by manipulation of documents, it amounts to playing fraud. If it is so, any subsequent action based on a fraudulent act would be vitiated and rendered illegal and no benefit can be given to such claimants based on fraudulent acts. 12. This Court has noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, more particularly of the petitioner and has gone through the copy of the revised application form bearing No.12323 submitted by the Headmaster of the school for grant of DISE Code for the period of 2012-2013 sometime in 2011, in which the name of petitioner is clearly reflected as an Assistant Teacher. If the aforesaid revised application form bearing No.12323 is indeed correct, the other documents relating to appointment of the respondent No.12 as well as her joining report in 2001 cannot stand together, for the reason that the school authorities in the aforesaid revised application form submitted in 2011 or 2012 had acknowledged the service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. Thus, this Court is of the view that this would call for an investigation from a competent authority. 13. In this regard, Mr. Mazumdar, learned standing counsel, Education Department has submitted that there is already a notification issued by the State Government dated 10.04.2003 by which the State Government has appointed the senior most Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell to investigate certain offences mentioned in the schedule, which reads as follows:- "Schedule of Offences (a) Offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No 49 of 1988) (b) Section 166 to 168 IPC. (c) Section 406 to 409 IPC and 417 to 420 IPC Page No.# 7/10 (d) Sections 471 to 477A IPC. (e) All Offences under the Official Secrets Act 1923. (f) All offences under Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. (g) Attempts, abetments and conspiracies of offences in items (a) to (f) above, by who-so-ever committed. (h) Any other particular offence or offences or Class of Offences that may be specified by the State Government." It has been accordingly submitted that this discrepancies and alleged official manipulations can be ascertained by the aforesaid investigating authority. 14. If the allegations of the petitioners are correct, of which this Court is also of the opinion that there are some prima facie materials to indicate such irregularities as also revealed from the revised application form No.12323, this Court is of the view that the possibility of the commission of offences under Sections 417, 418 and 420 IPC as well as offences under Sections 471 and 474 of the IPC as well cannot be ruled out for which an enquiry may be conducted 15. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the competent authority as notified under the notification dated 10.04.2003 to investigate the matter on the basis of the pleadings in the petition as well as the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official respondent Nos.4, 5, 7 and 9 on 22.02.2017 as well as affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 25.07.2019 and submit a report before this Court within 3(three) months. 16. It may be mentioned that the factual narration as above is of a general in nature, and the competent authority would be required to go through the pleadings of the case to ascertain the detailed facts of the case. In this investigation, the petitioner will extend full cooperation to the investigating authority and the investigating authority shall examine all such persons including the respondents and such other persons, as the authority may deem fit.” Page No.# 8/10 5. Reading the aforesaid, it appears that this court after observing the discrepancies and alleged official manipulations, directed the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell to investigate into the same in terms of the notification dated 10.04.2003. 6. Today, when the matter was called, Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the state respondent, submits the status report/action taken report dated 08.05.2025, received from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell. 7. The copy of the order dated 08.05.2025 is kept on record and marked as “X”. 8. Relevant portion of the aforesaid status report is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “12. During the course of investigation it has come to light that petitioner Julhash Uddin Ahmed was not a regular teacher although he used to attend the Silbari Shialkandi LP School (Venture) prior to the year 2000 as Asstt. Teacher sometimes. 13. But since from 2000/2001 as the Silbari Shialkandi LP School (Venture) was damaged due to storm, imparting of classes to student does not arise as per version of local people. 14. The petitioner Julhash Uddin Ahmed could not mention any name of the student to whom he imparted classes. It can be presumed that the Silbari Shialkandi LP School (Venture) was physically closed down in the year 2000/2001. 15. All the signatures were taken in the hope that Silbari Shialkandi LP School(Venture) will be provincialized in the year 2013 by the government. 16. On 02/05/2025 one a Joint petition has been submitted the complainant Julhas Uddin Ahmed and the accused of this instant case namely Ajita Banu (defendant of WPC Case No-2516/2014) to disposed off the case on the basis of compromise informing that the signatories are the plaintiff and Defendant No-12 in WP(C) Case Page No.# 9/10 which is pending before the Hon'ble Gauhati High court (Copy enclosed as Annexure-B) 17. The Vigilance PS has registered a case Vide C.M. Vigilance P.S Case No-05/2025 U/S-120(B)/418/420/471/474 IPC as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court. But in the mean time they have amicably settled the dispute between themselves as there is no existence of the school at all anywhere which was the bone of contention earlier. 18. The Silbari Sialkandi L.P. School was damaged and students left the school long time back in the year 2000/2001. Since neither the said school exists, nor any record of its existence are officially available, therefore both the parties are not interested to proceed with this case further. 19. The parties in presence of villagers had settled the dispute amicably regarding the said school and requested to take necessary steps and disposed of the case on the basis of compromise, as mistake of fact. 20. However, since the then In-Charge Block Elementary Education Officer, Porbatjhora, and the District Education Officer, Kokrajhar, issued the DISE code to Silbari Shial Kandi School, despite it being a non-provincialized (venture) institution that had been non-functional since 2000-2001 and existed only on paper, necessary communication will be made to the Government to initiate appropriate departmental action against them for gross negligence of duty and procedural lapses, particularly for failing to conduct any inspection or site visit prior to issuing the DISE code.” 9. Reading the aforesaid status report, it appears that the dispute involved in the present writ petition has been amicably settled by the parties in presence of the villagers. 10. Mr. S. K. Roi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further confirms that he has received verbal instructions from his client that the matter stands resolved. 11. In view of the above referred status report and the endorsement Page No.# 10/10 made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant