Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Hafiz Uddin Ansari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam and ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 2147 of 2015
Decided On : 06-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Mr. Kamaleswar Singha, Mr. K.M. Mahanta, Ms. P. Baruah
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Deka, D.N Bhattacharyya
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Purely temporary arrangement - Deemed university - Learned Senior Counsel assisted by learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, for respondent and learned counsel for respondent No. 5. - Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing of order, passed by Director of Secondary Education, , allowing respondent No. to hold charge of Principal of Higher Secondary School, , in district of Nagaon, following superannuation of then in-charge Principal. - Petitioner was allowed to hold charge of office of Principal of said school w.e.f., as a purely temporary arrangement - Impugned order reveals that respondent No. is an Assistant Teacher of school with MA, B.Ed degrees – Held, Public Works Department, being a part of Government of, cannot take a divergent stand - If this is view and decision of Division Bench in respect of a technical degree like B.Tech degree, there cannot be any other view in respect of non-technical degree like MA degree since it is pleaded case of respondent No - That he had obtained MA degree from deemed university through distance education mode; only fees etc - Were paid through off-campus centre, , nothing more should be read into it - When B.Tech degree conferred by said deemed university has been accepted by Water Resources Department, Government of and by Public Works Department on basis of Courts order, there is no reason why MA degree conferred by said deemed university should not be recognised as a valid degree - That apart, in impugned order itself, Director has made it abundantly clear that allowing respondent No. to be In-charge Principal of school is a purely temporary arrangement, which would come to an end on appointment of a regular Principal - As noticed above, process for appointment of regular Principal has been set in motion by issuance of advertisement - In such circumstances, Court is of considered opinion that it would neither be just nor proper to interfere in a completely temporary arrangement made by Director of Secondary Education by allowing respondent No - To be Principal In-charge of school till appointment is made on regular basis - Petition is accordingly dismissed
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. D.N. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 28.03.2015, passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, allowing respondent No. 5 to hold the charge of Principal of Sri Sri Sankardev Higher Secondary School, Batadrava, in the district of Nagaon, following superannuation of the then in-charge Principal.
3. Impugned order dated 28.03.2015, reads as under:-
"ORDER
Until further order, Sri Anil Kumar Saikia, MA, B.Ed, Asstt. Teacher of Batadrava Sri Sri Sankardev H S School, District-Nagaon, is hereby allowed to hold the charge of Principal i/c of the same School along with financial power under F R 49 (C) to draw and disburse the salary etc. of the staff of School in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher, vice Md Abdus Salam, Principal i/c is going to retire on 31.03.2015.
This is a purely temporary arrangement. This order will come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2015."
4. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that as the then in-charge Principal of Sri Sri Sankardev Higher Secondary School, Batadrava (school), was going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015, petitioner was allowed to hold the charge of the office of Principal of the said school w.e.f. 01.04.2015, as a purely temporary arrangement. Impugned order reveals that respondent No. 5 is an Assistant Teacher of the school with MA, B.Ed degrees.
5. Petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of this order by contending that he had joined the school on 30.12.1994 as a Subject Teacher in English and is continuing as such since then. He possesses both MA and B.Ed. degrees. On the other hand, respondent No. 5 joined the school on 18.06.1988 as an Assistant Teacher/Graduate Teacher with B.Sc. degree. He acquired B.Ed. while in service in the year 1989 and obtained MA degree in 2013 from the off-campus centre at Nagaon of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, a deemed university of Rajasthan. It is contended that MA degree obtained by respondent No. 5 from an off-campus centre of deemed university is not recognised. Therefore, the Director of Secondary Education committed an error in treating respondent No. 5 as possessing MA degree. MA degree of respondent No. 5 cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, respondent No. 5 is ineligible to hold the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School, which has vitiated the impugned order dated 28.03.2015 and therefore, the same should be set aside.
6. This Court by order dated 10.04.2015 had issued notice and thereafter, passed order dated 08.03.2016, staying the impugned order dated 28.03.2015, further directing that the affairs of the school should be managed through the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle.
7. Though number of affidavits have been filed by the parties, attempt would be made to summarise the substance of the respective stand of the parties.
8. Respondent No. 3, i.e., Director of Secondary Education, Assam, in his affidavit has stated that respondent No. 5 acquired post-graduate degree from a deemed university, the genuineness of which is yet to be ascertained. Being the appointing authority, respondent No. 2 had entrusted the senior most teacher to be the In-charge Principal of the school. Though petitioner had made a faint attempt to project himself as being senior to respondent No. 5, the same has been negated by respondent No. 2 in his affidavit by stating that respondent No. 5 is the senior most teacher of the school. Government of Assam in the Higher Education Department had issued Office Memorandum (OM) dated 09.07.2012, banning the activities of off-campus centres of deem
