IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Jyotshna Das, W/o. Amiya Kumar Medhi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Department Of School Education And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) No.7040 Of 2023
Decided On : 10-09-2024
Regularization - Service - Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018 - The court interpreted Rule 24(5) regarding seniority and regularization, concluding that the petitioner could not claim seniority prior to her regularization date.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order allowing a respondent to hold the Headmaster position, arguing for seniority based on her initial appointment date, while the respondent claimed seniority based on his earlier regular appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having been appointed on an adhoc basis, could not claim seniority prior to her regularization date of 28.02.2005, thus upholding the respondent's seniority.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority from her initial appointment date or from the date of her regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that seniority must be reckoned from the date of regularization as per the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :
Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3; and Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 07.11.2023, issued by the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, allowing the respondent No. 4, herein, to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster of Sankardev High School, Kamrup, along with financial power. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to an order, dated 28.02.2005, by which the services of the petitioner was so regularized with immediate effect with a further prayer that the same shall be so made from the date of her initial appointment.
3. The petitioner, herein, was initially appointed as a Science Graduate Teacher by the then District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Kamrup, vide order, dated 17.11.1993, and posted at Sankardev ME School, initially, for a period of 4 months. The said initial appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and subsequently, vide order, dated 30.08.1994, issued by the then District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Kamrup, such appointment was so extended until further orders.
4. The Sankardev ME School, wherein, the petitioner was so appointed, came to be amalgamated with Sankardev High School vide order, dated 22.09.1999 w.e.f. 07.09.1999. It is seen that subsequent to such amalgamation being effected; the services of the petitioner came to be so regularized with immediate effect by the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Guwahati, vide order, dated 28.02.2005.
5. The petitioner vide her representation, dated 22.03.2005, had prayed before the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Guwahati, that the regularization of her service made w.e.f. 28.02.2005, ought to be so made with effect from the date of her initial joining i.e. 26.11.1993. However, the said prayer of the petitioner was not considered.
6. It is seen that a vacancy so arising in the post of Headmaster in Sankardev High School, a proposal came to be so initiated for filling-up of the said post of Headmaster on in-charge basis. Accordingly, the names of the petitioner as well as the private respondent No. 4 came to be so forwarded by the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools to the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam. In terms of the processing so made and also on a communication, dated 16.10.2023, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, directing for allowing the respondent No. 4, herein, to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster of Sankardev High School, Kamrup; the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, vide order, dated 07.11.2023, proceeded to allow the respondent No. 4 to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster of Sankardev High School, Kamrup, along with financial power.
7. Being aggrieved; the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding praying for reliefs as noticed hereinabove.
8. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, with effect from the date of her initial appointment; was drawing her pay and allowances in the Graduate scale of pay and she continued to draw the same even after regularization of her service, so effected vide order, dated 28.02.2005.
9. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner being in continuous service with effect from the date of her initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. on 26.11.1993; the seniority of the petitioner ought to be so assigned by also reckoning the services so rendered by her before her service was regularized vide the order, dated 28.02.2005.
10. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel, by referring to the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincial
Seniority in service is determined by the date of regularization, not the initial appointment date, as per the applicable service rules.
The appointment of public officials must adhere to the prescribed procedures and consider all eligible candidates, as per the relevant service rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondent authorities to follow the regular appointment process as mandated by the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialis....
The main legal point established is that eligibility for participation in a selection process is determined at the time of initiation of the process, and subsequent eligibility does not entitle a can....
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.
Seniority of teachers is determined from when they officially qualify as Graduate Teachers; retrospective regularization does not grant earlier seniority.
The denial of a senior teacher’s claim to principalship due to age and educational qualifications is improper when the criteria are not strictly applied, affirming the need for transparent governance....
The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing the importance of seniority and misconduct in determining appointment validity under established legal principles.
The 'year of recruitment' for determining age eligibility for a promotional post is the year in which the vacancy arises. Once eligibility is established, administrative allegations or disciplinary p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.