Point of Law : It is made effective by Court quashing an administrative decision without substituting its own decision, and is to be contrasted with an appeal where the appellate tribunal substitutes its own decision on merits for that of the administrative officer.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 and Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.

2. Considering the subject matter in dispute and also the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2019 where pleadings have been exchanged, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. Five numbers of petitioners have joined together in challenging the appointment of the respondent no. 6 to the post of Headmaster of the Bijni Sishu Kalyan High School in the district of Chirang.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are all senior to the respondent no. 6 and are working as Assistant Teacher in the said School. However, by ignoring their seniority and in violation of the Rules governing the field namely the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialistion) Service Rules, 2003, (herein after Rules) the respondent no. 6 has been favoured with the promotion. It is the said order of promotion dated 05.03.2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

5. Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the Rules has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of Graduate Teacher as would appear in Section 2(n). Further, reference has been made to Section 14 (2) and 14 (4) of the said Rules. The learned counsel contends that the respondent no. 6 do not fall within a meaning of Graduate Teacher as per the definition as the past services were in M.E. School and not in the schools enumerated in the said definition. So far as Section 14 is concerned pertaining to recruitment to, inter alia the post of Headmaster, the learned counsel has submitted that there is a requirement of possessing 10 years of teaching experience as a Graduate Teacher and since the respondent no. 6 fails in the first requirement as a Graduate teacher, the promotion has been made in violation of the Rules. The learned counsel accordingly submits that impugned order be interfered with and the post be filled up strictly in accordance with law.

6. Shri Kaushik, the learned counsel for the Department submits that since this Court is within the territorial limits of the Bodoland Autonomous Council, the same would be defended by the said Council.

7. Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC however defends the order of promotion of the respondent no. 6. Countering the argument of the petitioners regarding the definition of Graduate Teacher as would appear from Section 2 (n) of the Rules, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Science Graduate Teacher are given the graduate scale of pay and treated to be Graduate Teacher and since the respondent no. 6 was a Science Graduate Teacher, her promotion has been done in accordance with law.

8. Ms. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 before defending the promotion raises an objection towards the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned counsel contends that out of five numbers of petitioners, four numbers do not even possess the minimum B. Ed degree and therefore, are ineligible to hold the post of Headmaster and accordingly they do not have any locus to challenge the present promotion. So far as the respondent no. 5 is concerned, attention of this Court has been drawn to the prayer in the writ petition as per which, a prayer has been made to appoint the petitioner no. 1 as the In-charge Headmaster in terms of the seniority.

9. As regards the merit of the challenge, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the said respondent duly fulfills all the requirements for being promoted to the post of headmaster. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 6 filed on 26.10.2021, the learned counsel has submitted that the initial appointment of the respondent no. 6 was 23.03.1992 as a Science Graduate Teacher and b