sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dispur, Karbi Anglong district

IN THE (HIGH COURT OF , , AND )

WP(C) No.2959/2008

1 Shri Ramlal Sarkar, S/O Shri Upendra Sarkar of Village-Boramari, P.O. Laopani, Dist. Karbi Anglong, Assam. 2 Shri Deba Prasad Das, S/O Late Dinesh Chandra Das, of Thana Road, , P.O. Diphu, Dist. Karbi Anglong, Assam. 3 Shri Mohidhar , S/O Late Baputi Saikia, of Vill. Kuthori, P.O. Kuthori, Dist. , Assam. 4 Shri Jayanta Bordoloi, S/O Shri Punaram Bordoloi, of Vill. Rongpigaon, P.O. Tumpring, Dist. Karbi Anglong, Assam. … Petitioners.

VERSUS

1. The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner, Sports and Youth Welfare Department, , -6. 2 The Director of Sports And Youth Welfare, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 3 The Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu, Dist. Karbi Anglong, Assam, (Represented by its Principal Secretary / Secretary) 4 The Deputy Secretary, Sports And Youth Welfare Department, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu, Dist. Karbi Anglong, Assam. 5 The District Sports Officer, , Diphu, Dist. Karbi Anglong, Assam. …Respondents.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE

For the petitioners : Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, Mr. B.J. Das, Mr. B. Ahmed, Ms. N. Haque … Advocates.

For the respondents 1-2 : Mr. J. Handique. …. G.A. For the respondents 3-5 : None appears.

Date of hearing and Judgment : 20.8.2015.

WP(C) No.2959/2008 Page 1 of 5

2

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. A.K. Purakayastha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The first two respondents are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate. The Standing Counsel for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as “the KAAC”) is not present in Court.

2. The advertisement dated 6.5.2005 (Annexure-2) was issued by the District Sports Officer of the Karbi Anglong District for application of those interested to be deputed for training for the Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) Course, in the college of Physical Education, Amravati in Maharashtra. The candidates were to be paid stipend to undertake the Course and the advertisement indicated that the names of the successful candidates will be forwarded to the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, Assam for appointment as Physical Instructors. The four petitioners were deputed for the aforesaid training to Maharastra and they were issued the degree in Physical Education by the Amravati College. The provisional certificate in respect of the 1st petitioner is enclosed here as Annexure-7.

3. After completion of training, the petitioners expected to be appointed as Physical Instructors. The record shows that numerous letters were written by the authorities of the KAAC to the for creation of posts of Physical Instructors for the Karbi Anglong District. The justification for creation of such posts is reflected in the letter dated 23.2.2006 (Page-42) written by the District Sports Officer Karbi Anglong to the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, Government of Assam. The views of the Karbi Anglong authorities was also conveyed to the Government for sanctioning of 9 posts, through the letter dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure-17).

4. However since the requested posts were not sanctioned and the

WP(C) No.2959/2008 Page 2 of 5

3

petitioners were unable to secure appointment, they have approached this Court for a direction on the State Government to create the posts of Instructors of Physical Education, on the basis of recommendation made by the KAAC.

5. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioners underwent the training in the Maharashtra College with the expectation of getting appointed to the posts of Physical Instructors but since the posts have not been sanctioned, the hopes of the trained degree holders have been belied.

6. On the other hand, Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate refers to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 to project that the posts of Physical Instructors are not created District wise but a State cadre is created under the Directorate of Sports and Youth Welfare and the appointed Physical Instructors are posted throughout the State and some Instructors are also deputed to the Karbi Anglong District through the authorities of the KAAC.

7. As regards the deputation of petitioners for training to Maharastra, the learned Government Advocate submits that the State Government has stopped such deputation from the year 1998-1999 and therefore it is contended that the authorities of the KAAC should not have deputed anyone for training without prior approval of the State Government.

8. From the materials on record, it appears that in pursuant to a recruitment process started by the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, a Select List of 80 candidates was notified on 25.3.2008 (Annexure-23) and in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered on 3.6.2008 (Annexure-24) in the WP(C) No.166/2008 and other connected cases, all selected persons were appointed and this process except for 2 appointees was approved by the High Court through its judgment. Consequently 78 from the Select List of 80 were appointed as Physical Instructors by the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare and this

WP(C) No.2959/2008 Page 3 of 5

4

includes 5 from the batch of nine who underwent training with the petitioners.

9. What emerges from the above discussion is that the posts are not specifically created for the Karbi Anglong District and Physical Instructors are to be selected and appointed for the entire State, under the State’s Directorate of Sports and Youth Welfare. The Select List notified on 25.3.2008 (Annexure-23) indicates that 5 of those deputed for training to Maharashtra by the KAAC had secured appointment through the selection process undertaken by the respondent No.2 and those appointees are now posted in different districts of Assam.

10. Whether any additional posts of Physical Instructors should be created in the State’s common pool to take into account the requirement of the schools in the Karbi Anglong District is a matter within the domain of the State Authorities. To sanction posts various factors including the Government’s financial capability are required to be taken into account. Therefore it may not be appropriate for the Writ Court to direct the State Authorities to create additional posts of Physical Instructors as is demanded by the authorities of the KAAC.

11. But at the same time, Mr. A.K.Purkayastha, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has projected from the correspondence made by the authorities of the KAAC and the State Government that a process was on to assess to need of Physical Instructors to be posted in the Karbi Anglong District. The letter dated 23.2.2006 of the District Sports Officer of Karbi Anglong shows that only 5 Instructors are serving in the entire District whereas the requirement of the schools within the District can’t be addressed by these few officers. While creation of posts only for the Karbi Anglong District may not be justified in view of the common pool of Physical Instructors for the entire State within the administrative domain of the Directorate of Sports and Youth Welfare, the augmentation of the common pool to meet the requirement in a deficient district should in my view receive due consideration of the State Authorities. Of course

WP(C) No.2959/2008 Page 4 of 5

5

the financial implications and other factors can’t naturally be ignored while taking a decision on creation of posts.

12. In view of the above discussion, I feel that a direction should be issued to the State Government to take a decision on the merit of the recommendation made by the authorities of the KAAC for creation of more posts of Physical Instructors so that adequate numbers can be spared to the Karbi Anglong District from the State’s common pool under the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare. If creation of posts is not feasible, the State may depute more Physical Instructors from the common pool to meet the requirement in the Karbi Anglong District. To facilitate the consideration by the State as suggested the petitioners are permitted to address a representation within 4 weeks through the authorities of the KAAC and the said representation is ordered to be considered on merit by the competent authority within 3 months of receipt of the same. With this direction, the case is disposed of without any order on cost.

JUDGE

Datta.

WP(C) No.2959/2008 Page 5 of 5