IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of public officials must adhere to the prescribed procedures and consider all eligible candidates, as per the relevant service rules.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 and Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. The challenge made in this Writ Petition is the order under No. GB-EST/Apptt/FP/24/2022/206, dated 30.03.2023 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by which the respondent No. 5, namely, Sri Naren Ch. Deka is allowed to hold the charge of In-charge Principal of the P. B. Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School in the Nalbari District, under FR 49(C) by way of temporary arrangement.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the P. B. Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School on 16.09.1998 and joined on 17.09.1998 and Sri Naren Ch. Deka, the respondent No.5, joined in his service as an Assistant Teacher of the said School on 06.11.1998. Both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are having the qualification of M.A. and B. Ed.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.5. As per the seniority list, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.1 and the name of the respondent No.5 at Sl. No.2. The petitioner being the senior and having all the requisite qualification and fulfilled all eligibility criteria, as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018 (in short ‘the Service Rules of 2018’) is more deserving a teacher to hold the charge of In-Charge Principal than respondent No.5. However, the respondent authority has issued the impugned order dated 30.03.2023, in favour of the respondent No.5, who is junior to the petitioner, whereby he has been allowed to hold the charge of In-charge Principal of the P. B. Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School, in violation of the provisions of the Service Rules of 2018.

5. Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel submits that it is not disputed that as per the seniority list, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.5, having all the requisite qualification and eligibility in terms of the provision under Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2018, which provides that a candidate must be M.A./M.Sc./M.Com., with B.T./B.Ed. Degree from any recognized University.

6. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner obtained his M.A. degree from the Gauhati University under the IDOL Study Center at Nalbari College on 06.06.2022, and also obtained the B. Ed. Degree. He further submits that the petitioner has completed his M.A. Degree after due permission from the Principal of P. B. Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School, after obtaining NOC for pursuing the Post Graduate course in the distance learning center under IDOL, Gauhati University. A certificate has been issued by the Principal to the effect that as per record at the relevant period the petitioner was on deputation. The petitioner took admission in M.A. in Education on 02.08.2019 and accordingly, completed his M.A. course on 29.10.2021.

7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that without considering the petitioner who is having all the eligibility criteria as per Rule 12 of the Service Rules of 2018, the impugned order dated 30.03.2023, passed in favour of the respondent No.5, who is junior to the petitioner, is in total violation of the Rules and thus not sustainable.

8. Mr. U. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department submits that the petitioner is a graduate teacher to the said Higher Secondary School obtained his Master Degree in Arts (Education) from IDOL in distance mode in the year 2019-21, without obtaining NOC from the appointing authority. He further submits that the petitioner has obtained NOC from the then Principal of the P. B. Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School, which is not permissible under Clause 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘the Conduct Rules of 1965’). Therefore, he submi