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 proceedings cannot be used as a recurring justification to deny a legitimate claim for appointment.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Purukayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Musahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education and Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 21.06.2025, issued by respondent No. 2, i.e., the Department of Secondary Education, Assam, by which, the prayer of the petitioner to appoint him as In-charge Principal of Sarthebari Higher Secondary School was rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for allowing him to hold the post of In-charge Principal of the said school as per the order dated 18.12.2023, passed by this Court, by which the Director of Secondary Education Department was directed to allow the petitioner to hold the charge of Principal of Sarthebari Higher Secondary School, after due verification of the particulars of all the candidates in the fray.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Teacher vide order dated 31.03.1992, and he startedgetting Graduate Scale of Pay by order dated 30.12.1993 and that on 30th of March, 2023, one Sri Jiten Chandra Barman, MA B.Ed, who was working as the Assistant Teacher of Sarthebari Higher Secondary School, was allowed to hold the charge of Principal of the said school instead of the petitioner, who was by then, eligible for appointment to the said post. Aggrieved by his non-appointment and allowing his junior to the post of In- charge Principal of the said school, the petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5419 of 2023, and this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023, remanded the matter back to the Director of Secondary Education Department by directing the said authority to pass appropriate order(s), allowing the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of the Principal, after verification of particulars of other candidates along with the petitioner, as stated above.

4. In pursuance of the said Judgment and Order, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, after considering the particulars of the petitioner as well as other eligible candidates, passed an order on 07.04.2024, and held that although the petitioner, during his service period, acquired the MA Degree from Krishnakanta Handique State Open University (KKHSOU, in short), which is a valid degree, but it was stated that the petitioner, by not obtaining previous permission from the appointing authority, for that purpose, as per Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1985, a disciplinary proceeding was directed to be initiated against him, and in view of the said fact, the petitioner was not allowed to hold the post of In-charge Principal of the said school.

5. The petitioner, being aggrieved again filed another writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 2136 of 2024, challenging the said order and this Court, vide order dated 11.04.2025, by taking up three writ petitions, one being challenge made to the order dated 07.04.2024, the second being challenge made to the show cause notice issued on 19.04.2024 and the other being the challenge made to the punishment of warning imposed upon the petitioner, disposed of the said writ petitions by setting aside the order dated 07.04.2024, the show cause notice dated 19.04.2024 and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

6. This Court, on the ground that not obtaining the prior permission from the appointing authority being the reason for rejection of his claim for appointment as In-Charge Principal, can only result in in