GAHC010176692025 2025:GAU-AS:15240

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4498/2025

ABDUL MUTALIB

SON OF LATE ABDUL AZIZ, R/O VILLAGE DHINGBORI PATHAR, KASORI,

NAGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,

DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

ASSAM

KAHILIPARA

GUWAHATI

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL

NAGAON

DISTRICT CIRCLE

NAGAON

4:MINTU KAKOTI

SON OF SRI MONIRAM KAKOTI

VILLAGE MAJPATHARI

NAGAON

ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS A H ATIA, MD. A J ATIA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., S LASKAR(R-4),MR S ABDULLAH(R-4),MR N A

MAZARBHUIYA(R-4),MR N Z CHOUDHURY(R-4),MR. A R BHUYAN (R-4)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

11.11.2025 Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P. Das, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, being respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely Abdul Mutalib, has challenged the order dated 29.07.2025, passed by the Director of Secondary Education.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, Memo No. E-645647/89- A, dated 29.07.2025, the Director of Secondary Education (respondent No. 2) had temporarily allowed the respondent No. 4, namely Mintu Kakoti, to act as Headmaster In-charge of Kashori High School, Nagaon, with financial power to draw and disburse the salary etc. of the staff of the school, in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher, under F.R. 46(C) vice Abdul Mutalib (present petitioner) by relieving him as Headmaster In-Charge with immediate effect.

4. Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on 04.11.1992, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Kashori High School, Nagaon and the said school was provincialised with the post of the petitioner. Mr. Atia further submits that as per the seniority list, the respondent No. 4 is the senior most teacher of the said school. However, while the authority was contemplating to handover the charge of Headmaster In-Charge of said school to the respondent No. 4, he refused to accept the same and then, the respondent No. 2, vide order dated 09.10.2018, had allowed the petitioner to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge. Thereafter, in the year 2022, the respondent No. 4 raised objection against the said order, dated 09.10.2018, by submitting representation to the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle, asking him to appoint as Headmaster In-Charge of the said school.

4.1. Further submission of Mr. Atia is that the respondent No. 4 had filed couple of writ petitions before this Court and during the pendency of one writ petition, the respondent No. 2 had passed the speaking order, which is being assailed in another writ petition, which is also pending before this Court, and thereafter, the respondent No. 2, while the said writ proceedings are pending before this Court, passed the impugned order relieving the petitioner from holding the charge of Headmaster In-Charge of the said school and allowed the respondent No. 4 to hold the said post.

4.2 Mr. Atia, also submits that the petitioner is holding the charge of Headmaster In-Charge on ad-hoc basis and he is replaced by another ad-hoc Headmaster In-Charge and this replacement of one ad-hoc Headmaster by another ad-hoc Headmaster is contrary to the well settled proposition of law that one ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another employee who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.

4.3. In support of his contention, Mr. Atia has referred to decision of this Court in the case of Mina Goswami vs. State of Assam and Others, in W.P.(C) No. 712/2022, and also of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, r