The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Headmistress, as prescribed by Rule 14(4)(i) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, must be strictly adhered to, and the requirement of B.T. or B.Ed. degree is essential for consideration for promotion.

The determination of interse seniority between the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 and the arrangement whereunder the respondent No. 4 has been allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Headmistress of the Uttar Barpeta High School, Barpeta (for short hereafter referred to as the School), is the subject matter of scrutiny in the instant proceeding. The order impugned is dated 11.05.2009, passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara.

2. I have heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R Islam, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam and Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 02. A. The recorded facts need be outlined in brief. The petitioner, respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 5 had joined the School on 19.02.1973, 19.01.1976 and 22.05.1978 respectively. Whereas, at the time of joining, the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were graduates, the petitioner was an intermediate. He passed the B.Sc. Examination in the year 1979. He, thereafter, acquired B.Ed. degree. The School was provincialized w.e.f. 01.01.1984. Consequently the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 started receiving their pay in the graduate scale on and from that date. In view of a dispute with regard to their interse seniority, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court with WP(C) No.4286/2008, which was disposed of on 25.02.2009, with a direction to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to examine the petitioner's case in the light of the relevant Government policy and also decide the question of seniority between the parties. It was, thereafter that, by the impugned order, the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, have been declared to be senior over the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 has been allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Headmistress of the School. In the above factual premise, the aforementioned State authority determined the interse seniority on the basis of the dates of joining as far as the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are concerned, and that of acquisition of the graduate degree by the petitioner.

3. In his affidavit, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam while endorsing the above determination, has referred to Rule 24 (2) (i) of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (hereafter for short referred to as the Rules). The above conclusion has also been affirmed by the respondent No. 4 in her individual counter. She has further averred with regard to Rule 14 (4) (i), in particular, that the criteria of being a graduate in Arts, Science and Commerce together with B.Ed. or BT degree is not indispensably essential for a candidate to be eligible for being considered for the post of Headmaster of a school governed by the Rules and that one with a higher academic qualification sans B.Ed. or BT degree is also entitled to be promoted to that post. She has therefore, asserted against being academically deficient compared to the petitioner to hold the charge of the office of the Headmistress of the School.

4. In his additional-affidavit, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam has apprised this Court that the vacancy in the abovementioned post of the School would be filled up on regular basis in terms of the Rules.

5. Mr. Mazumdar, has urged with particular reference to Rule 14 (4) (i) of the Rules that even assuming without admitting that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are senior to the petitioner as per rule 24 (2) (i), as the respondent No. 4 is clearly ineligible to be considered for the post of Headmaster being bereft of the minimum academic qualification prescribed, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be interfered with. As the respondent No. 4 is unqualified in terms of Rule 14 (4) (i) being without BT or B.Ed. degree, which is an essential academic qualification prescribed thereby, her seniority alone is not enough to elevate her to the post of Headmistress o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document