Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010049902025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1470/2025 SRI DHIREN BARMAN SON OF LATE P. BARMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BORBHAGJARI, P.S. TIHU, P.O. BAKUAJARI, DISTRICT - NALBARI (ASSAM). VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NALBARI 4:KUSHAL DAS ASSTT. TEACHER (TUTOR) SRIMANTA SANKARDEV BIDYAPEETH M.E SCHOOL TIH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH, MR. A BHATTACHARJEE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 17.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher under the OBB Scheme in Gobradol Milan Primary School in 1998, pursuant to the selection process initiated in 1996. The petitioner’s case in short is that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities, to consider the petitioner’s prayer in his representation dated 09.03.2019 and 18.02.2022, submitted before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department ,in light of the letter dated 18.07.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, by allowing the petitioner to work in the capacity of Assistant Teacher in M.E. School, equivalent to that of other selected candidates by the same select list who are still working in the respective school as per the selection list dated 26.04.1998. The other prayer is to allow the petitioner to work in the capacity of Tutor equivalent similar to the work of respondent no.4. 2. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee submits that while the petitioner had been discharging his duties in the school, in the retention list prepared by the Directorate for the year 2001 – 2002, the name of one Nabin Barman was shown in place of the petitioner. However, the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Nalbari corrected the name of the person who was to be retained, by replacing the name of Nabin Barman by the petitioner, vide order dated 07.07.2000. Page No.# 3/9 3. The said Nabin Barman being aggrieved by the replacement of his name by the petitioner herein, filed WP(C) 6557/2001, along with one Jogen Chandra Das, whose grievance was against one Sri Kushal Das. Thus, in WP(C) 6557/2001, Shri Nabin Barman and Sri Jogen Chandra Das challenged the retention of the petitioner herein and Shri Kushal Das vide the impugned order dated 07.07.2000. 4. WP(C) 6557/2001 was disposed of vide order dated 20.03.2002, in terms of the order dated 14.03.2002 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, which was quoted in the order dated 20.03.2002, as follows : “Examined the order dated 7.7.2000 of DEEO, Nalbari, perused the relevant records of renewal sanction of retention. Examination of records reveals that the list of incumbency of the retained posts communicated by Govt. of Assam vide this "office letter No.EE (Plan) 53/2000/89 dated 17.4.2000 has been modified by the DEEO, Nalbari in favour of Sri Kushal Das and Sri Dhiren Barman in place of Govt. approved names of Sri Jogen Das and Sri Nabin Barmen without approval of the Govt. This action taken by the DEEO, Nalbari is hereby held as unauthorised and therefore, the order of DEEO, dated 7.7.2000 communicated vide Memo No.DEEO/ NAL/Convert/99/4942-50, is hereby declared as illegal and without authority and therefore, stand cancelled with immediate effect." 5. This Court, in it’s order dated 20.03.2002 passed in WP(C) 6557/2001, thus held that as the Government had already cancelled the impugned order dated 07.07.2000, by which the petitioner herein had been retained in place of Sri Nabin Barman, the State respondents were to consider the case of Nabin Barman and Sri Jogen Chandra Das, along with other similarly situated persons, for their appointments as Assistant Teacher in the school. Page No.# 4/9 6. Sri Nabin Barman and Sri Jogen Chandra Das were aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2002 passed in WP(C) 6557/2001, to the extent that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in not setting aside the orders of appointment of Sri Kushal Das and the petitioner herein, due to which the Government may not be able to pass orders appointing Sri Nabin Barman and Sri Jogen Chandra Das as Assistant Teachers. 7. The Division Bench, vide order dated 24.02.2005 passed in WA No.157/2002, held that the State Government had already nullified and cancelled the appointments of Sri Kushal Das and the petitioner herein and thus left scope for the Government to appoint Sri Nabin Barman and Sri Jogen Chandra Das. The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had rightly passed the order, directing the Government to consider Sri Nabin Barman and Sri Jogen Chandra Das for appointment as Assistant Teacher, along with all other eligible candidates. 8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that subsequent to the above events, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam has issued a letter dated 18.07.2021 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, stating that the petitioner’s service was terminated by the DEEO, Nalbari in pursuance to Government order dated 22.02.2008 and that the petitioner had drawn his salary w.e.f. 12.11.1998 to 16.07.2008. The letter also stated that the petitioner had filed WP(C) 2651/2017 for regularization of his service and that the matter was now sub-judice. Page No.# 5/9 9. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the letter dated 18.07.2021 issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, the petitioner should be allowed to discharge his duty as Assistant Teacher in Gobradal Milan ME School with all consequential benefits and in the meantime, he should be allowed to discharge his duty as Tutor. 10. Ms. S. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 submits that the petitioner’s case has already been dismissed by this Court in WP(C) 4040/2008 and as such, nothing survives in this writ petition. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 12. As can be seen from the order dated 20.03.2002 passed in WP(C) 6557/2001, which has reproduced the order dated 14.03.2002 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, which is to the effect that the DEEO, Nalbari had illegally inserted the writ petitioners name instead of Nabin Barman and without approval of the Government, for retention of his service. In WA 157/2002, the Division Bench, in it’s order dated 24.02.2005, has clearly stated that the State Government had already nullified and cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner. The above facts make it clear that the petitioner’s prayer for continuation as an Assistant Teacher had not been accepted by the Government or by this Court. 13. The above being said, the petitioner had also filed WP(C) 4040/2008, Page No.# 6/9 whereby it had made a challenge to the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education, upholding the order of the Director of Elementary Education, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner herein for appointment/retention in terms of the appointment made earlier. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had vide it’s order dated 24.07.2013 dismissed WP(C) 4040/2008. The above fact further shows that the petitioner had no further right to agitate the issue for being retained as an Assistant Teacher of the said school and as such, no right survived on the petitioner to claim any further appointment as a school teacher. 14. The only issue that remains to be decided in this case, is whether the petitioner can have any right to be appointed by the Government, pursuant to the letter dated 18.07.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The contents of the said letter dated 18.07.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows : “To The Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Elementary Education Department, Dispur-6 Sub : Petition submitted by Sri Dhiren Barman, Terminated A/T Gobradal MES Ref.: The Govt. letter No.ΑΕΕ, 1297/2019/141 dtd.03/06/2021 With reference to the subject cited above, I would like to inform you that Sri Dhiren Barman was appointed as A/T in Gobradal Milan MES vide Govt. letter No.PMA/337/95/pt-1/152 dated 24-04-1998 under OBB Scheme(4040) as per selected by DLSC, Nalbari on 03/11/1998. (Copy Page No.# 7/9 enclosed and marked as Annexure-A). He has rendered service upto 16- 07-2008 and terminated by the then DEEO, Nalbari in pursuance to the Govt. order vide No. ELC/WP(C)459/2002/761/111, dtd.22/02/2008. (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-B). The Petitioner has drawn his salary w.e.f 12-11-1998 to 16-07-2008. The Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide case No. WP(C) No.2651/2017 for regularization of service and the matter is now under subjudice. This is for your land information.” 15. A perusal of the contents of the above letter dated 18.07.2021 does not indicate in any manner that any decision has been taken by the Government that the petitioner should be appointed or allowed to continue as an Assistant Teacher of the Gobradal Milan ME School. In fact on obtaining the details of WP(C) 2651/2017, it is seen that the petitioner is not a party in WP(C) 2651/2017. In fact WP(C) 2651/2017 was disposed of on 19.09.2019. On the other hand, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam’s letter dated 18.07.2021 states that WP(C) 2651/2017 was sub-judice. The contents of the above letter are either patently wrong or has somehow been fabricated. In any event, the letter dated 18.07.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam does not have any bearing on the petitioner’s claim for appointment as an Assistant Teacher, as the petitioner is not a party in WP(C) 2651/2017. 16. The above being said, this Court finds that while the petitioner knew very well the facts of his case, he has not been fair to this Court, as he has not annexed a copy of the order in WP(C) 4040/2008, which had dismissed the petitioner’s claim. Further, though the petitioner has relied upon the letter dated Page No.# 8/9 18.07.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for regularization of his service in terms of WP(C) 2651/2017, the petitioner knew very well that he was not a party in WP(C) 2651/2017. As such, the direction passed in WP(C) 2651/2017, to publish the report made by the aqCommittee constituted vide notification dated 08.02.2016, regarding the excess appointments of Teachers, who were to be classified as those who were appointed against sanctioned posts and those appointed against non-existent post, is not applicable to the petitioner’s case. The petitioner would also have known that WP(C) 2651/2017 was not subjudice on 18.07.2021, i.e. the date the Director wrote the letter, on the basis of which he prays to be allowed to continue as Assistant Teacher, as WP(C) 2651/2017 was disposed off on 19.09.2019. 17. In the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India & Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Supreme Court has held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He cannot be allowed to play `hide and seek' or to `pick and choose' facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts become impossible. The Court has inherent power to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an application requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. Page No.# 9/9 18. On considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been trying to lead this Court up the wrong garden path intentionally. The petitioner has also not only wasted the time of this Court, but has also not submitted all the required documents. The petitioner has instead played hide and seek with facts, which cannot be allowed. Though contempt proceedings can be drawn up against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that payment of cost would be enough to serve the interest of justice. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid within a week from today. The Registry shall put up a note after a week, stating as to whether cost has been paid by the petitioner or not. The cost will be payable to the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat) Employees’ Association, Guwahati. 19. This writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant