Back
1996 Supreme(Gau) 28
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.N.Baruah, B.N.Singh Neelam, JJ.
Ghana Kanta Das -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Ors. -Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 21 of 1994
Decided On : 20-02-1996
R.L.Yadav, M.Choudhary, H.N.Sharma, D.N.Choudhary, B.D.Goswami , B.K.Goswami
The court held that the settlement agreement between the Government and the Association of teachers provided for promotion of the seniormost teacher in the cadre and that the appellant was entitled to the post of Principal as he was senior to the 4th respondent in all respects.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - SENIORITY - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S DIRECTION TO STATE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE APPOINTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a graduate teacher with requisite qualifications and experience, was appointed as Principal of Bardoloni Higher Secondary School on 1.6.90. However, the 4th respondent, who was junior to the appellant, was transferred as Principal of the same school by an order dated 7.6.90. The appellant challenged this order, contending that he was entitled to the post as per the settlement agreement between the Government and the Association of teachers, which provided for promotion of the seniormost teacher in the cadre.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was senior to the 4th respondent in age, service, and qualifications. It also held that the respondents' conclusion that the 4th respondent was senior was incorrect and that the impugned order appointing the 4th respondent as Principal could not be sustained in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to the post of Principal as per the settlement agreement between the Government and the Association of teachers? 2. Whether the respondents' conclusion that the 4th respondent was senior was correct?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlement agreement provided for promotion of the seniormost teacher in the cadre and that the appellant was senior to the 4th respondent in all respects. It also held that the respondents' conclusion that the 4th respondent was senior was incorrect and that the impugned order appointing the 4th respondent as Principal could not be sustained in law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the State Government to make appointment of the Principal in terms of the Bipartite Agreement referred to above till Select List is prepared and in case the Select List has already been prepared, the appointment shall be made in accordance with the select list.
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.94 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 1184 of 1990 dismissing the writ application.
2. The petitioner-appellant is a graduate from Dibrugarh University. He also passed BT Examination from the same University while he was in service. He joined as Assistant Teacher in a post of Graduate Teacher in Bafdoloni High School on 17.1.64 and thereafter served as Vice Principal of Bardoloni HS School when the post of Vice Principal fell vacant, 3rd respondent by Annexure A letter dated 11.5.00 (to the writ petition) addressed to the then Principal of the said school informed him that his date of superannuation would be 31.5.90 and directed him to hand over the charge of the said school on the said date to the appellant who was then the Vice Principal of the school. The petitioner-appellant having the requisite qualifications and experience formally by Annexure B letter dated 20.5.90 (to the writ petition) applied to the 2nd respondent, praying for appointment as Principal of the said school. On 1.6.90 he took over charge as Principal of the said school from the outgoing Principal C. Dutta. This was conveyed to the 3rd respondent by Annexure C letter dated 2.6.90 (to the writ petition).
It may be pertinent to mention that Minister of Education, Commissioner and Joint Commissioner, Education settled the grievances of Assam Secondary Education Teachers and Employees' Association by agreeing to certain conditions. On 7.6.90 by Annexure D order, the 2nd respondent transferred the 4th responded who was then the Principal of Sisi Chariali Higher Secondary School as Principal of Bardoloni Higher Secondary School in place of the petitioner-appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant submitted representation on 12.6.90 before the Government against the order dated 7.6.90. A telegraphic order was issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the aforesaid Annexure D order dated 7.6.90. Later on 20.6.90 the 3rd respondent asked the 4th respondent to join as Principal of Sisi Chariali HS School. By Annexure G order dated 20.6.90 the 2nd respondent cancelled the earlier order and validated the order passed on 7.6.90. This was done behind the back of the petitioner-appellant.
Writ petition (Civil Rule No. 1184 of 1990) was filed before this Court and this Court by order dated 2.7.90 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that day. The 4th respondent filed an application for modification of the said order contending, inter alia, that he had already joined as Principal on 11.6.90 in terms of the order dated 7.6.90. Appellant, however, disputed the same by saying that as per order dated 14.6.90 petitioner-appellant did not hand over charge and continued as Principal. By order dated 20.11.90 this Court directed the Secretary, Education to pass order regarding holding of charge. The Government also wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that the order dated 2.6.90 transferring 4th respondent to Bardoloni was stayed with immediate effect and that the appellant would remain as Principal In-charge till disposal of the case. A telegraphic order was issued by the Government directing the 3rd respondent to handover examination papers including Admit Cards. On 2.8.1.91 the prayer of the 4th respondent to stay the order dated 21.12.90 was rejected by this Court, On 8.2.91 the 3rd respondent passed an order allowing the petitioner-appellant to draw and disburse the pay and allowances of the staff of the school. By order dated 17.8.91 the Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department determined the seniority of 4th respondent and justified the order dated 7.6.90. The grounds for staying the operation of the order dated 14.8.91, inter alia, were that the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 7.6.90 which was ratified by order dated 14.8.91 was under challenge before this Court in Civil Rule No. 1184 of 1990. a This Court by order dated 2.7.90 in Civil Rule
