IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of eligibility criteria for appointment as Principal under the Rules of 2020 is crucial, and the authorities must adhere to the principles applicable for regular appointments while making temporary appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. B. Purkayasatha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5. Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel is present on behalf of the respondent No.6.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3099/2020 setting aside the order dated 30.06.2020, by means of which, the writ appellant herein was appointed as the In-charge Principal of the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Haflong.

3. The facts and circumstances of the case, in a nutshell, are that the writ appellant herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide order dated 28.01.1992 and his services were regularized as Assistant Teacher on 24.11.1994. The respondent No.6 was appointed as Subject Teacher on 31.12.1999 and her services were regularized on 12.01.2006. On superannuation of the erstwhile In-charge Principal of the aforesaid school the respondent No.6 herein was temporarily appointed as the In-charge Principal of the aforementioned school by the order dated 10.10.2017 issued by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the writ appellant was appointed as Vice Principal of the school vide order dated 17.01.2020. The appointments of the respondent No.6 as In-charge Principal of the school and that of the writ appellant as the Vice Principal were admittedly made under the provisions of the Assam School Service (Govt. Secondary School) Rules, 2009 (herein after referred to as “the Rules of 2009”) which was holding the field at the relevant point of time. However, the Rules of 2009 were subsequently replaced by the Assam Secondary Education (Government Schools) Services Rules, 2020 (herein after referred to as “the Rules of 2020”) which was published in the official gazette on 03.06.2020. Subsequent thereto, the authorities had passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2020 replacing the respondent No.6 by the writ appellant as the In-charge Principal of the school.

4. Assailing the order dated 30.06.2020 the respondent No.6 herein as writ petitioner had instituted WP(C) No.3099/2020 inter-alia contending that the writ appellant did not possess the requisite qualification either under the Rules of 2009 or the Rules of 2020 inasmuch as the B.Ed. degree obtained by him from an “off campus” mode that too, without obtaining the prior permission of the authorities, was invalid. It was also the case of the writ petitioner that the writ appellant did not fulfill the requisite qualification for being appointed as In-charge Principal of the Schools under the Rules of 2009. On the contrary, the writ petitioner fulfilled the requirements of the Rules both under the Rules of 2009 as well the Rules of 2020 for being appointed as the In-charge Principal of the School. Under such circumstances, the respondent authority was wholly unjustified in issuing the impugned order dated 30.06.2020 replacing the writ petitioner by the writ appellant, who was impleaded as respondent No.6 in the writ petition.

5. After hearing the submissions of the parties and by interpreting the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2020 the learned Single Judge had arrived at the conclusion that the writ appellant/respondent No.6 (in the writ petition) did not fulfill the essential criteria as laid down under Rule 12(3)(a)and (b) of the Rules of 2020 for being appointed as the Principal of the school. It was further observed that nothing has been shown to conclude that the writ appellant/respondent No.6, who was working as Vice Principal, was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal. Not only that, it was also observed that the private respondent in the writ petition had also failed to demonstrate that the writ petitioner lacked the qua