IMPORTANT POINT
The omission of B.Ed. qualification for Vice-Principal recruitment violates NCTE guidelines, necessitating its inclusion as a mandatory requirement.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel, as well as Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of their respective petitioners in these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department and Mr. I. Alom, learned standing counsel, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), appearing on behalf of their respective respondents in all these writ petitions.

2. In WP (C) 7959/2017, WP (C) 840/2018, WP (C) 5480/2019, WP (C) 5992/2019, and WP (C) 571/2022; a challenge was made with regard to the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized) Service Rules, 2003. While in WP (C) 8682/2019 and WP (C) 4250/2020; the provisions of sub-rules 2(i) and 2(p) of Rule 2 and Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, is under challenge.

3. At the outset, it is to be noted that the provisions of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized) Service Rules, 2003, was repealed by the provisions of Rule 35 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, and as on date; it is the provisions of the said Rules of 2018, which is holding the field. Accordingly, the Rules of 2003, being already repealed, no further consideration would be called for in WP (C) 7959/2017, WP (C) 840/2018, WP (C) 5480/2019, WP (C) 5992/2019, and WP (C) 571/2022, and consequently, all the above-noted writ petitions, would stand closed.

4. The present order is confined to the consideration of the challenge as made by the petitioners in WP (C) 8682/2019, and WP (C) 4250/2020, to the provisions of sub-Rules 2(i) and 2(p) of Rule 2 and Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018.

5. The petitioners, herein, by way of instituting the above-noted 2(two) writ petitions, have assailed the provisions of sub-rules 2(i) and Rule 2(p) of Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2018, to the extent that while defining the terms Graduate Teacher and Post Graduate Teacher in the said Rules; it was not prescribed that for appointment against the said posts, along with the educational qualification prescribed; B.Ed. Degree was also mandatory. The petitioners have further presented a challenge to the provisions of Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, which relates to recruitment to the post of Vice-Principal to the effect that the qualification so prescribed for recruitment against the said post, do not mandate the incumbent to possess the B.Ed. Degree which was contended to be mandatory in terms of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) guidelines.

6. The challenge of the petitioners in the above-noted 2(two) writ petitions is that B.Ed./B.T. Degree is an essential educational qualification for recruitment as Graduate Teacher and as Post Graduate Teacher under the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, and the post of Vice-Principal being a promotional post from the posts of Graduate Teacher as well as Post Graduate Teacher; the non-prescription of the qualification of B.Ed./B.T. Degree as one of the essential conditions requisite to be possessed by an incumbent in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Vice-Principal, is contrary to the provisions of the said Rules of 2018 as well as the prescriptions made in this connection by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) authorities.

7. In the above-referred writ petitions; there is hardly any factual controversy which would require a detailed factual narration for the purpose of adjudication of these writ petitions. Accordingly, the individual particulars of the petitioners disclosed in these writ petitions, is not reproduced herein.

8. A challenge as noticed hereinabove to the relevant provisi