GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.C.Phukan, J.
Kelhoupielie -Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland and Ors. -Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 162 (K) of 2000
Decided On : 24-08-2001
Promotion - District Education Officer - Nagaland (Administrative) Education Services Rules, 1977 - Rule 4(1)(i) - Rule 4(1)(ii) - Programme-cum-Script Writer - Officer-in-charge, ET Cell - Assistant Director - Promotion Contravention - Quashed and Set Aside
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of District Education Officer (DEO)/Deputy Director and requested consideration for his own promotion. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's promotion contravened the Nagaland (Administrative) Education Services Rules, 1977.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's promotion to the cadre post of DEO/Deputy Director from the post of Officer-in-charge, ET Cell was in contravention of the Nagaland (Administrative) Education Service Rules, 1977 and Schedule II thereto, and hence such promotion was quashed and set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's promotion to the cadre post of DEO/Deputy Director from the post of Officer-in-charge, ET Cell was in contravention of the Nagaland (Administrative) Education Service Rules, 1977.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's promotion was in contravention of the relevant rules and therefore quashed and set aside the promotion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside and quashing the impugned notification promoting the respondent to the post of DEO/Deputy Director, School Education. The respondent was not required to refund any amount drawn during the period he served as DEO/Deputy Director in excess of his pay and allowances as Officer-in-charge, ET Cell.
2.I have heard Mr. CT Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. LS Jamir, learned Govt Advocate, Nagaland for the State-respondent Nos 1 and 2, and Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
3. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, may be stated as follows. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 were temporarily appointed as Assistant Teachers by the Director of Education, Nagaland vide order dated 163.72 (Annexure A) and order dated 23.9.79 (Annexure G) respectively.
4. After serving for more than five years as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Schools, Adult Education vide order dated 15.7.77 (Annexure B). He was then promoted to the Class n Gazetted post of Assistant Project Officer (APO), Adult Education vide order dated 27.3.79 (Annexure C). The post of APO was later encadred by amending the Schedule 1 to the Nagaland (Administrative) Educationl Service Rules, 1977 vide notification dated 6.10.80 (Annexure N). Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Headmaster, TM Govt High School at Kohima, vide order dated 26.3.96 (Annexure D). The petitioner was then promoted to the Grade D Class I Gazetted post of Assistant Director of School Education vide order dated 7.3.97 (Annexure F).
5. On the other hand, after serving for less than three years as Assistant Teacher, the respondent No.3 was appointed as Prograrnme-cum-Scnpt Writer (Class n Gazetted) under the Educational Technology (ET) cell in the Directorate of Education "on ad hoc basis for a period of 4 (four) months'' vide notification dated 19.6.82 (Annexure I). This notification was superseded by another notification dated 14.7.82 (Annexure I to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No.3), whereby the words "on ad hoc basis for a period of 4 (four) months" appearing in the earlier notification were substituted by the words "on deputation for a period of one year". The said post of Programme-cum-Script Writer for ET Cell was earlier created by sanctioning letter dated 1.4.82 (Annexure H) for a period upto 28.3.83 under the Plan head. Thereafter the respondent No.3 was promoted to the Class I Gazetted post of Officer-in-charge, ET Cell on condition that such promotion will not confer on him "any right to claim seniority over his seniors, i.e., Deputy Inspector of Schools/Headmaster cadre" vide a notification dated 5.10.90 (Annexure J). Ultimately, the respondent No.3 was promoted to the Grade C, Class I Gazetted post of District Education Officer (DEO)/Deputy Director vide order dated 20.5.2000 (Annexure K) while the petitioner remained in the lower Grade D, Class I post of Assistant Director.
6. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 20.5.2000 (Annexure K), the petitioner has come up before this Court in the instant writ petition.
7.1 have perused the writ petition, the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-respondent Nos 1 and 2, affidavit-in-reply thereto filed by the petitioner as well as the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 and affidavit-in-reply thereto filed by the petitioner. I have also heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the year 1980, a new cell called 'Education Technology Cell' was created in the Education Department under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme with the object to develop educational technology through proper mass media; and a post of Programme-cum-Script Writer (Class n Gazetted) was created in that cell for a specific purpose and period, and t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.