WP(C) 4799/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA (ORAL) Heard Mr. HI Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AD Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Considering the grievance raised and as agreed to by the learned counsel appeari ng for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Tea cher on 8.10.1982 vide resolution No.2 adopted by the Managing Committee of the Gobill ME Madrassa, Hailakandi in its meeting dated 8.10.1982. His name also fou nd place in the inspection report dated 18.9.1997 of the i/c District Elementary Education Officer (’DEEO’ for short), Hailakandi. In the year 2005, the Governm ent of Assam adopted a policy decision for providing financial assistance to tho se schools which are yet to be provincialised in terms of the policy decision an d the respective district authorities were directed to submit detail verificatio n report in respect of existence of those schools/institutions. The DEEO, Hailak andi after verification of the institutions in his jurisdiction submitted a deta il report to the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi who in turn forwarded a list of 57 numbers of ME/MEM institutions to the respondent No.1 for providing the bene fit of financial assistance. Thereafter, on 19.2.2011, the respondent No.2 accor ded sanction of Rs.644.34 crores for 191 non-government institutions of Hailakan di district including the petitioner’s institution. On receipt of said sanction order, respondent No.3, i.e. the DEEO, Hailakandi instructed all the Headmasters of ME and MEM for submitting the particulars of their respective institutions i ncluding the existing teaching and non-teaching staffs. Accordingly, respondent No.5 submitted its particulars alongwith the list of teaching and non-teaching s taff. But surprisingly, the name of the petitioner was dropped from the said ist and in his place name of respondent No.6 figured. Though the petitioner had not been removed/dismissed/suspended from the school he was not allowed to sign in the Attendance Registrar thereby depriving him from getting financial assistance . Being aggrieved with the action of Headmaster of the school, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam on 10.3.2011 itself. However, the same have evoked no response. Hence, the instant writ petition. I have perused the statements made on oath in the application alongwith the anne xures appended thereto. Mr. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the petitioner may submit a fresh representation before the DEEO, Hailakandi who would after h earing respondent Nos.5 and 6 as well as the petitioner dispose of the represent ation by a speaking order. In view of the submission so made, petitioner is directed to submit a representa tion before the DEEO, Hailakandi, respondent No.3 ventilating his grievances the rein within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today and the DEEO shall dispose of t he same by passing a speaking order within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the d ate of receipt of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner. It is further made clear that order passed by the DEEO, Hailakandi be communicat ed to the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 forthwith. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the DEEO, Hailakandi, he is at liberty to approach t he authority again. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.