IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of regular appointment for the post of Principal, determination of seniority based on the date of receiving graduate scale, and the need to follow the eligibility criteria as per the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules 2018.

JUDGMENT :

An order dated 08.04.2022 by which the respondent no. 6 has been given the charge of the post of Principal of Barghuli Nehru Higher Secondary School in the BTC is the subject matter of challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The fact projected in the petition is that the petitioner is a Madhyama (Bisharad) which, according to the petitioner, is equivalent to Graduation.

3. Vide an order dated 29.04.1994, the Inspector of Schools had appointed the petitioner as Senior Hindi Teacher in the KB Dewalkuchi HS School for a period of 3 months against a newly sanctioned post. The Head of Account for the related expenditure was also indicated in the said order. The emphasis is given on the scale of pay allotted to the petitioner which was stated to be Rs. 1375-3375/-per month which according to the petitioner, is Graduate Scale of Pay. The contention of the petitioner is that while his appointment was extended from time to time, vide an order dated 23.10.1998, he was adjusted in the present Barghuli Nehru Higher Secondary School where he continued to serve. On 05.03.2019, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Headmaster. The petitioner has also relied upon a seniority list prepared by the then Headmaster of the School wherein all the details of the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 and another Assistant Teacher were given and in the said list, the name of the petitioner had figured in Sl. No. 1 whereas that of the respondent no. 6 figured in Sl. No. 2. Vide an order dated 28.02.2022, the petitioner was given the charge of the Principal of the School as the earlier Principal had retired. It is clarified that since the School was upgraded to a Higher Secondary School, in the meantime, the post relevant is that of the Principal. While the petitioner was discharging his duties as In-charge Principal, vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2022, the respondent no. 6 was given the charge of the Principal.

4. I have heard Shri RP Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D Doley and Ms. A Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri U Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, Assam as well as Shri B Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. Shri P Mahanta, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 6. Though the SMDC of the School which is a party respondent had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, there is none to represent the said SMDC.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules 2018 (hereinafter called as Rules) has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 14 and the proviso thereto. It is submitted that the seniority of the Graduate Teacher would be determined from the date of receiving Graduate Scale of Pay by the respective Assistant Teacher. It is contended that irrespective of the appointment of the petitioner as Senior Hindi Teacher in the School vide order dated 29.04.1994, the fact of grant of Graduate Scale of Pay would determine his seniority. Reference has also been made to Rule 3 thereof which is of Classes and Cadres wherein under Class-III of sub-Rule (1) (b), the post of Graduate Teacher and Hindi Teacher having Bachelor Degree from recognized University are included. He submits that though the initial appointment of the petitioner was for a particular tenure, apart from extension of his services, the same was regularized by orders of the authority. It is submitted that taking all the relevant factors into consideration, the charge of the post of the Principal of the School was rightly and lawfully given to the petitioner till filling up of the said post by direct recruitment which is envisaged by Rule 12 of the said Rules

6. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6, Shri Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 6 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in graduate scale on