Eligibility criteria for promotion must be met, and invalid qualifications disqualify candidates from holding positions, even on an ad hoc basis.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. H. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. K. Boruah, learned counsel, and Ms. P. Borah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

2. This writ appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2621/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Graduate Assistant Teacher in Gogamukh Girls’ High School on 30.10.1986, whereas the respondent No.4 was appointed as a Hindi Teacher in the same school on 21.05.1998. Thereafter, the post of Headmaster of the said school fell vacant on retirement of the incumbent therein on 10.06.2019 and the petitioner was allowed to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster by order dated 10.07.2019. It is the specific case of the appellant/writ petitioner that while he was continuing in such capacity, the respondent authorities vide order dated 24.03.2022 cancelled the order dated 10.07.2019 and allowed the respondent No. 4 to hold the charge of the said post.

Situated thus, the writ petition has been filed.

The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, was pleased to hold that the there was no error in passing of the order dated 24.03.2022, whereby the respondent No.4 was allowed to hold the charge of the post of Headmistress of the school in question in place of the appellant/writ petitioner by cancelling the earlier order dated 10.07.2019 and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

Against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

4. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the respondent authorities in allowing the respondent No.4 on ad hoc arrangement to hold the charge of the post of the Headmistress of the school by replacing the appellant/writ petitioner, which was also an ad hoc arrangement, is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that replacement of an ad hoc appointee by another ad hoc appointee is not permissible. He further submits that the ground of the respondents that the appellant/writ petitioner is not eligible to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster is erroneous and perverse.

He further submits that as the qualifications for appointment of Teacher in the ordinary educational institutions have not been prescribed under the NCTE Act, the B.Ed. degree obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner from the CMJ University cannot be said to be invalid. He further submits that since the appellant/writ petitioner is senior to the respondent No.4, he ought not to have been replaced as In-charge Headmistress vide the respondent No.4.

5. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhuyan has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 432.

6. Per contra, Ms. H. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department submits that the B.Ed. degree, as obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner from the CMJ University, is invalid. She further submits that by order dated 28.04.2020 the Government had declared that B. Ed. degree obtained from the CMJ University cannot be recognized as valid for the purpose of employment and promotion and since the B.Ed. degree of the appellant/writ petitioner was obtained from the from the CMJ University, the petitioner did not have the requisite eligibility criteria and, therefore, was not entitled for being considered for promotion to the said post on ad hoc arrangement.

7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and also considered the case laws cited by the counsels fo