SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 10256

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
BINOD SARMAH – Appellant
Versus
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD – Respondent
WP(C) 1442 / 2025



##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010053242025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1442/2025

BINOD SARMAH

SON OF LATE BASUDEV SARMAH, RESIDENT OF QUARTER TYPE

III/01/GFI, MOTHER TERESSA ROAD, ASEB RESIDENTIAL COLONY,

NARENGI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM PIN 781026.

VERSUS

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR,

GUWAHATI -781001.

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

BIJULEE BHAWAN

PALTAN BAZAR

GUWAHATI-01

3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

BIJULEE BHAWAN

PALTAN BAZAR

GUWAHATI-01

4:SMTI BABITA ADHIKARY

C/O DIPJYOTI DAS

UZAN BAZAAR

CHATRAKAR

NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR

MG ROAD

GUWAHATI-781001

##PAGE2##

Page No.# 2/9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N MAHANTA, MR. D J DAS,N GAUTAM

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, MS. M BORGOHAIN, (FOR R-4),MR. M DAS, (FOR

R-4),MR. P MAHANTA, (FOR R-4)

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

20.05.2026

Date :

Heard Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, 2

and 3 and Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the impleaded respondent No.4.

2. The grievance in this petition was to the order dated 06.03.2025, whereby

the respondent authorities had cancelled the office order dated 17.01.2025

regarding the promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Headmaster.

3. The petitioner was appointed to the ASEB High School, Narengi, Guwahati on

21.09.1992, and the respondent No. 4 had been appointed to the same school

on 03.09.1992. It is an admitted position that the petitioner holds the B.Ed

degree, while the respondent No.4 does not hold the B.Ed degree.

4. By an order dated 17.01.2024, passed by the APDCL, the petitioner was

promoted to the rank of Headmaster in the usual payment and grade pay with

other allowances as may be admissible, as per the company’s rules and was

posted temporarily and until further order as Headmaster of the ASEB High

##PAGE3##

Page No.# 3/9

School, Narengi, Guwahati, APDCL, with effect from the date of taking over

charge. By the order of the same date, but a different issue number, the

respondent No.4 was promoted to the rank of the Assistant Headmaster of the

same school on the same terms and conditions.

5. The petitioner accordingly joined as the Headmaster of the School on

01.02.2024. By an order dated 06.03.2025, the promotion of the petitioner to

the rank of Headmaster and the promotion of the respondent No.4 to the rank

of Assistant Headmaster were cancelled with immediate effect, with a stipulation

that no recovery would be made for the excess amount paid to them on account

of their promotion, with effect from their date of joining to the date of issuance

of this order.

6. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the present writ petition was filed, and by

an order dated 11.03.2025, this Court, while issuing notice, had stayed the

operation of the order dated 06.03.2025, insofar as it related to the present

petitioner till the disposal of the writ petition.

7. The respondent APDCL has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, stating that the

promotion of the petitioner was initially granted in view of the Assam Senior

Secondary Education (Government Schools) Service Rules, 2020, wherein it

was stated that the candidate for the Post of the Headmaster should be a

graduate with a B.Ed/BT Degree for any recognized University and possessing

10 years of teaching experience as a graduate teacher.

8. It has been stated that there are no codified service rules for teachers serving

##PAGE4##

Page No.# 4/9

in the schools administered by the respondent APDCL. It has further been

stated that, as a matter of practice, in the past, promotions were being granted

on the basis of seniority, and such seniority was again based on the date of

joining of the incumbents to the post.

9. It is the stand of the respondent APDCL that the petitioner had been

promoted under the Rules of 2020, bypas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top