Legal analysis of high court judgement
Dilip
(Querist) 26 August 2014
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,
A judgement of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has come in my favour. I was appointed as a Teacher in AR and since the very first date I am teaching in Children School. And after more than 60 years an attempt is initiated to deploy me in Non-teaching activities and instructional duty to Troops for which I was not appointed. I challenged the order of the same and the order of the CAT in Hon'ble High Court and thus the Order. Now I want an expert analysis on this and valuable suggestion on this. The judgement is as under :-
Heard Sri R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B Das, learned Central govt. counsel.
Petitioners were appointed as Hindi teacher to teach Hindi to the jawans. On occasion they were drafted to schools run by Assam Rifles to teach Hindi to the students. Petitioners were repatriated from the schools and they are now directed to attend to civil works and also to assist jawans in combat operation. Petitioners challenged the said order before CAT. The CAT found nothing offensive in the order that directs petitioners to discharge duties of civil nature and as well duties relating to combatant operation. Petitioners aggrieved by the said order filed this petition.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that duties relating to combatant operation are onerous and not part of their job chart, and there is a risk element too. Petitioners being civil teachers appointed to teach Hindi to the jawans they should be confined to the said duty only, the other duty should not be added to their job chart.
The counsel for the respondent strenuously submits that the charter of duties prescribed by circular dated 15th July, 2013, now in challenge, cannot be assailed and petitioners are bound to comply with the posting orders and to discharge their duties.
The counsel for the petitioner per contra submits that option was given to the Hindi teachers to choose between combatant duty and duty of a civil teacher. All of them opted to remain as civil teacher. Therefore they cannot be enjoined to do the duties of combatant nature.
Upon consideration of the facts and material it is to be seen that petitioners have not opted for combatant duty; they opted to remain as civil teacher. Therefore they have to be treated as civil teacher and they are bound to discharge duties of civil nature. If there are any vacant civil posts in that event petitioners who are civil teachers can be posted to such vacant posts(of any nature) as a temporary measure until the said posts are filled and till then petitioners should not refuse to discharge such functions. In that view of the matter the writ petition is disposed of.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 27 August 2014
What analysis you want the experts to do? Judgement is clear.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 27 August 2014
Consult a local lawyer and show him full decision if something is not clear.
Dilip
(Querist) 27 August 2014
Dear Sir (s),
Confusion starts from here: Teachers are being deployed in Children Schools since 1950 decade. The RR was framed in 1980. Now Dept is saying you are sent to Troop's School. But we didnot come for them. If teachers were appointed for troops why the teachers were being engaged in schools although 2 years of probation successfully cleared and confirmed in that existing post of the school. Now the process of repatriation is turned down. Can these teachers be sent back from school as per High court direction?
Anirudh
(Expert) 27 August 2014
Dear Mr. Dilip,
There is absolutely no confusion in the High Court order, unless you want to read something which is not there in the order.
The High Order is quite clear to the following effect:
"If there are any vacant civil posts in that event petitioners who are civil teachers can be posted to such vacant posts(of any nature) as a temporary measure until the said posts are filled and till then petitioners should not refuse to discharge such functions. In that view of the matter the writ petition is disposed of."
The teachers are not being given any combatant duty - which only you people objected. The teachers will now be given only civil duty - need not necessarily be teaching job. The HC is quite clear that the petitioners should not refuse to discharge any such civil function.
Dilip
(Querist) 27 August 2014
Thanks, That is clear in the pronouncement. The question is repatriation is allowed or not? This is the question. The pronouncement clarifies FR11, that is clear but what about the dispute arisen by the both two orders.
Anirudh
(Expert) 27 August 2014
If that is clear, then keep quiet for now. Till such time other party does not do anything, do not unnecessarily exercise your mind thinking about the imponderables!
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 29 August 2014
What do you want? Interpretation of the order? How your counsel interpreted? We the experts are giving opinion to legal problems, we are not interpreter.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate 
(Expert) 31 August 2014
Your query has been properly addressed by expert Mr. Anirudh and also you were suggested to remain silent until the same is reopened by the other side.
