IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Head Master of an MV School can be appointed as Assistant Head Master in an amalgamated school, as both ME and MV Schools are treated equally under the relevant statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a Hindi Teacher of Bagta BS High School has put to challenge the action of the respondent authorities in appointing the respondent no. 3 in the post of Assistant Head Master of the said School. The petitioner alleges that there is violation of an Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016. The petitioner has based his claim to the said post of Assistant Head Master on the strength of being the senior most Assistant Teacher in the said High School.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for adjudication, it would be convenient to place the facts of the case in brief.

3. The petitioner is a Hindi Teacher of the School in question. Pursuant to a policy decision published by an Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016, an exercise of amalgamation was taken in the year 2017, the Bagta BS ME School and Bagta BS MV School were amalgamated with the Bagta BS High School. It is the case of the petitioner that on such amalgamation, by following the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the Head Master of the MV School was made the Assistant Head Master of the amalgamated School. The said incumbent was one Shri Sarat Ch. Kalita. However, vide a corrigendum published on 19.07.2019, the respondent no. 3 was appointed as the Assistant Head Master of the School. The petitioner claims that there is no provision for accommodation of a Head Master of an MV School in an amalgamated School as Assistant Head Master and the said post is required to be filled up by direct recruitment, in which case, the petitioner would have a chance.

4. I have heard Shri ABT Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department whereas the private respondent no. 3 is represented by Shri Amarendra Gogoi, learned counsel. The records placed before this Court by the respective parties have been carefully examined.

5. Shri Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision either in the Office Memorandum or the Statutory Rules for accommodation of the Head Master of MV School when such School is merged with a High School. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.06.2017 whereby the ME School as well as MV School were amalgamated with the High School. In the said amalgamation, the incumbent, Shri Sharat Ch. Kalita, who was holding the post of Head Master of the MV School was made the Assistant Head Master. However, vide the impugned corrigendum dated 19.07.2019, the respondent no. 3 has been appointed in the said post of Assistant Head Master. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide such impugned Corrigendum, the scope and opportunity of the petitioner to apply for and be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Head Master has been jeopardized.

6. On the other hand, Shri Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel of the Department has defended the action. He clarifies that at the time of amalgamation, there was no Head Master in the ME School and the respondent no. 3 is the available Head Master of the ME School. He further clarifies that under the Rules holding the field, ME School and MV School is at par. It is further submitted that the Corrigendum had to be issued as before the order of amalgamation could be published, the incumbent holding the post of Head Master of the MV School, Shri Sharat Ch. Kalita had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. He accordingly submits that the writ petition be dismissed.

7. Shri Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, while endorsing the submissions made by the Department has submitted that the projection made by the petitioner is fallacious both factually and legally.

8. Shri Gogoi has referred to the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. The definition of Upper Primary School appearing in Rule 2(xii) has been referred to which reads as follows: