Back
KARDAK ETE
Mahammad Azad S/o Lt. Afaz Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
1.byinstituting this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order vide Memo. No.PC/HE/Misc.35/2011/Pt./1/160, dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam whereby petitioner is placed junior to the respondent No.4, Sri Dilip Ch. Haloi, in their inter-se-seniority on the basis of the date of birth as the date of joining in the services of petitioner and respondent No. 4 is on the same date i.e. on 10.11.2000. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant the benefit of provincialisation of his service under the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (now repealed), by assigning the petitioner his rightful position above the respondent No.4, in order of seniority of the teaching staff of Barkhetri College, Mukalmua.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Lecturer (now Assistant Professor) in the Department of Geography in Barkhetri College, Mukalmua in Nalbari District on 09.11.2000 and he has joined on 10.11.2000. There were two other Lecturers (Assistant Professors) in the Geography Department, who had joined earlier than the petitioner. According to the petitioner,
The court refrained from deciding on the genuineness of the appointment letter due to the pending criminal proceedings, but allowed the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum if the appointment ....
The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing the importance of seniority and misconduct in determining appointment validity under established legal principles.
Point of Law : Education Officer (Secondary) can exercise jurisdiction to determine any inter se dispute as regards seniority that has been referred to him under Rule 12(3) of the said Rules till suc....
Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
The court established that for determining seniority post-provincialization, the date of birth is the determinable factor when prior service in a venture school is not considered.
The date of entry into service should determine seniority, and any departure from this principle must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court established that interim orders do not invalidate prior valid selections and that seniority must be determined based on actual service and selection dates.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
