WP(C) 4156/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.R. Pathak, Mr . U.K. Goswami, Mr. A. Deka and Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsels appearin g for the respondents in the writ petitions. All the writ petitions have been fi led making a grievance against non-provincialisation of the services of the peti tioners. The petitioners claim that they are serving as School teachers in diffe rent LP and ME Schools. According to the petitioners, they have been appointed a s such prior to the provincialisation of the Schools and accordingly when the Sc hools were provincialised, their services were required to be provincialised. Ho wever, at the time of provincialisation, all such teachers were not regularised / provincialised depending upon the posts that were sanctioned for the purpose. The teachers who have been left out from such regularisation / provincialisation , are treated as dropped teachers. 2. Prior to this litigation, a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1571/1998 was filed claiming provincialisation of the services of the dropped teachers. T he said writ petition was decided by judgement and order dated 01.09.2003 alongw ith a batch of other writ petitions. The judgement is reported in 2008(3) GLT 22 9 (Jiban Chandra Deka and others Vs. State of Assam and others). Operative part of the said judgement is reproduced below :- 4. The policy document dated 13.1.2003 is not under challenge in any of the cases. Learned counsels for the petitioners have also not raised any question w ith regard to the validity of any of the norms prescribed by the aforesaid polic y document, in course of the oral arguments advanced. However, Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 5627/2000, in course of his argume nts, has contended that, perhaps, some suitable adjustment in Condition Nos. 1 and 2 of the policy document would make the policy introduced more broad based a nd fair, a position agreed to by Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents. Condition No.1, the Respondents agree, may be re ad as covering the cases of all dropped teachers in service as on the date of provincialisation of the concerned school, whereas, the requirement of approval of the appointments made by the Managing Committee as embodied in Condition No.2 , as agreed by the respondents, could be reflected by any document acknowledging rendering of service by dropped teachers . Further more, in the affidavit file d, the State while stating that the regularisations when made, would be prospect ive, has agreed to give the benefit of previous service rendered for the purpose of pension and retirement dues. 5. Since the policy has been framed to deal with the cases of the dropped teaching it is axiomatic that all such cases be dealt with in terms of the polic y adopted. 6. In view of the above, this bunch of cases will stand now disposed of wit h the following directions :- (i) The cases of the petitioners in each of the cases will be considered in accordance with the norms, criteria and eligibility conditions prescribed by the policy document dated 13.1.2003 subject to the modification in Condition Nos. 1 and 2, as stated above. (ii) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, shall within 7 days from today, constitute a Committee to examine the cases of the petitioners in the pr esent bunch of cases and such other cases, as may be referred to the said Commit tee, from time to time, by this Court. As the said Committee will be executing t he implementing the policy decision taken by the state, this Court considers it appropriate to leave it to the discretion of the Chief Secretary to the Governme nt of Assam to decide on the composition of the Committee with the suggestion th at the Committee may be a high powered Committee consisting of 3 members and the present Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department may act as t he Member-Secretary. (iii) The Committee, upon due verification of the cases before it, shall withi n 6 months from the date of its constitution, prepare district wise list of dro pped teachers eligible for regularisation in terms of the norms and criteria la id down as per direction No.1 above. The eligible persons, on being identified, shall be arranged in the district wise lists, in order of seniority. (iv) Suitable adjustments in the placements assigned in the district wise lis t, as may be required, upon consideration of such other cases which may be refer red to the Committee in the future shall be made by the Committee. (v) Appointment against available posts in each district shall be made on th e basis of the lists prepared. (vi) All appointments made would be prospective but will carry the benefit of past services for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. 3. By notification dated 19.9.2003, the Government of Assam in the Educatio n Department constituted a High Power Committee to examine all pending cases of dropped teachers. The said Committee was superseded and re-constituted by furthe r notifications dated 24.5.2004, 24.12.2004 and 8.2.2006. 4. By WT Message dated 30.9.2003 and 13.10.2003, the Government of Assam in the Education Department directed all the Inspectors of Schools and the Distric t Elementary Education Officers to submit copies of detailed particulars and the statements which had already been submitted by the respective Schools at the ti me of provincialisation, duly certified by the jurisdictional Inspector of Schoo ls alongwith the particulars relating to the name, qualification, date of appoin tment, date of joining, etc. 5. By advertisement dated 6.11.2004 published in the newspaper, the Govt. i nvited full particulars from the dropped teachers alongwith necessary documents for the purpose of scrutiny. Thereafter by notification dated 11.11.2005, a Scre ening Committee was constituted to make a preliminary assessment. The said Scree ning Committee published an advertisement in the newspaper on 15.12.2005 directi ng the heads of the Schools / Institutions to accompany the incumbents for authe ntication during the screening of individual cases with proposals for taking per sonal hearing of persons who claimed to be dropped teachers. Prior to that the G ovt. in the Education Department issued WT Message dated 16.11.2004 directing al l the District Officers i.e. Inspectors of Schools to submit the genuine applica tions alongwith all particulars together with a consolidated list of dropped tea chers. The particulars were required to be furnished on or before 14.12.2004. 6. The aforesaid Screening Committee scrutinised the applications submitted by the dropped teachers along with the documents submitted by them by comparing with the original documents like detail particulars submitted for recognition a nd provincialisation of the respective Schools at the time of provincialisation. The Screening Committee also consulted the original appointment letters, joinin g reports, attendance registers, resolution adopted by the Managing Committee, i nspection report, provincialisation order, particulars relating to allotment of teachers at the time of provincialisation, enrolment at the time of provincialis ation, working certificate of the head of the Institution and other relevant doc uments. Based on such documents, the screening Committee prepared this report un der 3 (three) heads, namely, (i) Secondary Schools, (ii) Upper Primary Schools a nd (iii) Lower Primary Schools for placing before the High Power Committee. 7. The Screening Committee submitted its report to the Government vide its letter dated 29.6.2006 and thereafter the High Power Committee in its meeting he ld on 29.8.2006 observed that the report so furnished by the Screening Committee was deficient and there were short-comings. Accordingly, a review Screening Com mittee was constituted vide Govt. order dated 29.8.06 with 13 officials of the G overnment to re-verify and to prepare the list of applications of dropped teache rs as per particular format. 8. The review Screening Committee scrutinised the documents and application s and all other related materials and submitted its report before the High Power Committee. Thereafter, the High Power Committee had 4 (four) meetings, which we re held on 24.7.06, 29.7.06, 8.8.06 and 30.8.06. In the said meetings, the High Power Committee finalised the detail statement of the dropped teachers. It also prepared the district wise seniority list of dropped teachers alongwith their vi ews in each case. The said Committee, however, observed that there is no dropped teachers in the L.P. Schools. 9. The report so prepared by the High Power Committee formed subject matter in WP(C) 3976/2005 and some other writ petitions which have been decided by jud gement and order dated 1.3.07 reported in 2008(3)GLT 234 (Tapan Kumar Das and ot hers Vs. State of Assam and others). In the said judgement, noticing the content ion advanced on behalf of the respondents that considering the process of provin cialisation of LP Schools, there is no question of their being dropped teachers. It has been observed thus :- 8. The High Power Committee has taken the view that unlike M.E. and High Sc hools, who were required to submit a list of teachers who were working along wit h the student population which provided a rational and objective basis for deter mination of the actual need of the teaching staff of the School which, in turn, facilitated identification of the dropped teachers there was no such requirement in the case of L.P. school teachers. An argument has been offered by Sri Choudh ury, learned departmental counsel, that a L.P. School in the absence of any such requirement, may have recruited a large number of teachers out of whom only a f ew were really necessary. Are all such other teachers to be understood as droppe d teachers because their services were not provincialised at the initial stage ? Mr. Choudhury has also drawn the attention of the Court to the specific finding recorded by the high power committee that at the time of provincialisation of L .P. Schools posts were sanctioned on the basis of need, performance and seniorit y and that whatever number of posts that were required in terms of the student p opulation were sanctioned. 9. The facts stated above, if they are correct, may sustain the view record ed by the high power committee with regard to L.P. school teachers. However, the said facts have to be supported by requisite evidence, after necessary enquiry in that light had been made. In this regard the Court has looked into Part-II of the report of the high power committee, which is a compilation of the basic fac ts collected by the screening committee. In none of the compilations recorded up on enquiry by the screening committee there is any evidence of the fact that any such exercise was performed by the said committee. It is the considered view of the Court that in case of L.P. School what was really required to be determined is the student-teacher ratio at the time when provincialisation was made and to sanction that many posts of teachers that stood justified on the basis of the s tudent population. If there were need for more teachers and yet lesser posts wer e sanctioned, the teachers already working, in order of seniority, to the extent of the posts necessary will be dropped teachers. As the aforesaid exercise does not appear to have been performed by the high power committee I am of the view that the said committee should be required to perform the task once again in so far L.P. schools are concerned. 10. From the above, what is seen is that by the aforesaid judgement, this co urt while determining as to what was really required to be determined was the st udent-teacher ratio at the time of provincialisation, issued direction for carry ing out an exercise as to whether there was need for more teachers and yet lesse r posts were sanctioned. It was observed that in case of there being need of mor e teachers and lesser posts were sanctioned, the teachers already working, in or der of seniority to the extent of the posts, necessary will be dropped teachers. Noticing that the said exercise was not carried out by the High Power Committee , direction was issued to carry out the said exercise by the said Committee in s o far as the LP Schools are concerned. 11. The facts narrated above pertaining to the constitution of the High Powe r Committee, Screening Committee, Review Screening Committee etc. have been high lighted in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents in various writ petit ions. Pursuant to the judgement in Tapan Kumar Das (Supra), the Government agai n constituted a High Power Committee for examination of all pending cases of dro pped teachers in provincialised LP Schools in Assam under Education (Elementary) Department vide notification dated 16.8.07. Thereafter, the Government by its o rder dated 11.9.2007 entrusted the responsibility to four officers of the Educat ion Department for necessary verification of the lists of dropped teachers of LP Schools district wise as per the format approved by the High Power Committee. T he said High Power Committee had six sittings /meetings held on 6.9.07, 4.2.08, 5.3.08, 6.3.08, 7.3.08 and 15.3.08. As per the minutes of discussions held in th e said meetings/sittings, the Committee finalised the detailed particulars of dr opped teachers of provincialised LP Schools and published district-wise seniorit y list of dropped teachers. Out of 330 cases, it has found only 192 teachers as Dropped LP Teachers in respect of LP Schools. It is the stand of the responden ts that pursuant to the aforesaid judgement of this court, the High Power Commit tee has meticulously scrutinised all the cases of dropped teachers and thereafte r has found only 192 cases of dropped teachers in LP Schools. 12. Pursuant to the above exercise carried out by the High Power Committee, the list of dropped teachers were published in the newspaper. When the present p etitioners did not find their names in the said list, they approached this court by filling the instant writ petitions, making a grievance against non-inclusion of their names in the said list. 13. From the stand of the respondents, what could we gathered is that since the High Power Committee has already scrutinised all the applications received p ursuant to the newspaper publications and also in terms of the orders passed by this Court, there cannot be any further action for entertaining further applicat ions from the applicants claiming to be dropped teachers. However, the Committee is not opposed to make further scrutiny of the pending applications facilitatin g which the Government in the Education Department has already issued notificati on dated 16.7.2010, by which the High Power Committee has been re-constituted fo r examination of all pending cases of dropped teachers of LP/ME/MEM/High Schools /HS Schools including non-teaching staff under Education Department. It is the s tand of the respondents that the said Committee will only consider the pending c ases and will not entertain any new application. The reason for such considerati on of pending cases has been assigned in paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit, which is quoted below :- 23. That the deponent states that in case of those teachers claimed to have been dropped and who have already applied pursuant to the two advertisements pub lished in the newspapers stated herein above and / or possesses this Hon’ble Cou rts order for consideration of their cases by the Committee but whose cases have not yet been placed before the screening committee and / or High Power Committe e and which are pending for consideration ; the government have decided to place such cases before the committee, for its consideration. As some members of the High Power Committee, constituted on 16.08.2007, have been transferred and / or retired and / or not in service, the High Power Committee is to be reconstituted again and for consideration of such pending cases will need some time. The Gove rnment have also decided that it shall not receive and consider any new fresh ap plications / cases. The High Power Committee to be constituted shall only consid er such cases which are already pending and were not placed before it. 14. All the petitioners have made a grievance that although their names have not been placed in the list published by the High Power Committee as dropped te achers but no reason has been assigned as to why their names have not been inclu ded in the said list. It is the stand of the said petitioners that since they ha d submitted all the required particulars in response to the aforementioned adver tisement, it was incumbent on the part of the High Power Committee to assign rea sons for rejection of their claim of being dropped teachers. On the other hand, some other petitioners have claimed re-consideration of their cases as pending c ases in terms of the aforesaid notification dated 16.7.2010. 15. From the above narration of the entire facts leading to filling of the i nstant writ petitions, what is seen is that the respondents have carried out an exercise to find out as to who are genuine dropped teachers. In the process, new spaper publications were also made giving due notice to all such teachers. The t eachers who did not respond to the said notice, cannot now make any grievance th at their names have not been included in the list. As regards the applicants who se cases have been rejected on scrutiny of the materials on record, having regar d to the composition of the High Power Committee coupled with the exercise it ha d carried out to find out as to who are the dropped teachers and in absence of a ny allegation of malafide and / or colourable exercise of power by any one of th e members of the said Committee, it cannot be said that the task of fact finding undertaken by the said Committee is arbitrary or illegal. The writ court in exe rcise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia certainly cannot make a roving enquiry and / or act as a Fact Finding Autho rity. However, as fairly admitted by the learned Standing Counsels, Education De partment that in case of the candidates, who had responded to the advertisement by submitting their particulars relating to the claim of being dropped teachers are entitled to know the reasons for rejection of their claims. 16. Considering all the above aspects of the matter, this batch of writ peti tions are disposed of with the following orders :- i) The candidates who did not respond to the aforementioned advertisement i ssued by the High Power Committee cannot now claim that their cases have been ig nored or not responded to by the High Power Committee. There cannot be any endle ss exercise. The High Power Committee has already carried out the same. ii) So far as the cases which have been rejected by the High Power Committee , the candidates involved in the said cases are entitled to know the reason for such rejection. Although such reasons may be available in the report of the High Power Committee but it will be appropriate for the Govt. to furnish and / or pr ovide reason to the individual candidates. Necessary communication in this regar d shall be made to the candidates whose plea of being dropped teachers has been rejected. iii) Inspite of the exercise that has been carried out by the High Power Comm ittee, if there are still any pending case of dropped teachers of LP/ME Schools with which the present proceeding is concerned, the High Power Committee shall c arry out necessary exercise in terms of the said notification dated 16.7.2010. iv) The Government in the Education Department shall take necessary follow u p action in terms of the list of dropped teachers that has already been publishe d in the newspaper on 1.3.2008. 17. Let the exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not latter then 31.3.2011. 18. With the above directions and observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.