Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010241952024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6337/2024 MD. SAHAR UDDIN SODIAL S/O- LATE MOTIBUR RAHMAN SODIAL, ASSTT. TEACHER, SENIOR MOST AND QUALIFIED, MA, BSC, BED, CHANDPUR PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL, CHANDPUR-III, R/O- TURAIMIA LASKAR LANE, KADAMTALA PART IV, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788009 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM GUWAHATI KAHILIPARA PIN- 781019. 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE SILCHAR ASSAM 4:MD. SHAHJAHAN AHMED LASKAR ASSTT. TEACHER (ASSAMESE LANGUAGE TEACHER) CHANDPUR PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL CHANDPUR PART III SALCHAPRA BLOCK DIST- CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 PIN-78811 Advocate for the Petitioner : J.P. BARUAH, MR. B PURKAYASTHA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR. A R TALUKDAR (R4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 07.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department and Mr. A.R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that on the retirement of the earlier Headmaster, the respondent no.4 has been allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster of Chandpur Public High School in the district of Cachar. The petitioner’s grievance is that though the respondent no.4 is senior to the petitioner as a Graduate Teacher, the respondent no.4 does not have a B.Ed Degree. As such, the respondent no.4 cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Headmaster, in terms of Rule 14 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2018 Rules”). 3. Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, on the other hand, is having a B.Ed qualification, besides being a Graduate Teacher for 10 (ten) years. As the petitioner is eligible to be appointed Page No.# 3/5 as Headmaster of a school in terms of the 2018 Rules, the petitioner cannot be overlooked for the post of Headmaster of the said school by a under qualified candidate. In this respect, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagannath Pegu vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in 2007 (3) GLT 389. He accordingly submits that the appointment of the respondent no.4 as In-charge Headmaster should be set aside and a direction should be issued to the respondents, to appoint the petitioner as In-charge Headmaster of the school till a regular Headmaster is appointed. 4. Mr. A.R. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the petitioner was on deputation at the time of the respondent no.4 being made to hold the charge of Headmaster of the school and as the respondent no.4 was senior to the petitioner, there was no infirmity in the respondent no.4 being made the In-charge Headmaster. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. Rule 14(2) of the 2018 Rules states as follows : “(2) Eligibility for the post of Headmaster/Superintendent in High School/High Madrassa as the case may be shall be as follows:- (a) He must be B.A/B.Sc/B.Com with B.T/B.Ed degree from any recognized University. In respect of Hindi Teacher having degree qualification, the Hindi 'Parangat' and 'Nishanar' shall be considered instead of B.T/B.Ed; (b) He must have at least 10 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher: Provided that the Graduate teacher shall include the cadre of Assistant Page No.# 4/5 Headmaster for the purpose of selection to the post of Headmaster and the seniority of the Assistant Headmaster shall be counted from the date of joining as Graduate Teacher with graduate scale of pay: Provided further that in case of amalgamated High School where ME/MV school has been amalgamated, the Assistant Headmaster is eligible for selection as Head- master subject to the condition that the incumbent should have at least 15 years of teaching experience as graduate teacher including the period of service in the erstwhile ME/MV School.” 7. In the case of Jagannath Pegu (supra), this Court was to consider a case wherein the petitioner therein who had a B.Ed Degree and had acquired ten years of teaching experience as a Graduate Teacher, had been overlooked for holding the charge of Headmaster of the school, by a person who was junior to the petitioner therein and who did not have a B.Ed Degree. This Court held that in view of the petitioner therein having the academic qualification to be considered for appointment to the post of Headmaster as per Rules, which was lacking in the respondent no.4, the petitioner should be considered for holding the charge of Headmaster. However, this Court also held that it was too fundamental to state that a candidate eligible in terms of the relevant Rules for promotion to a post on a regular basis, cannot be overlooked for the purpose of any temporary arrangement concerning the post, as in the instant case. 8. In the present case also, the petitioner is having B.Ed Degree, while the respondent no.4 does not have a B.Ed Degree. Though the petitioner is junior to the respondent no.4, the petitioner having the academic qualification to be appointed as a Headmaster, the observations made by this Court in Jagannath Pegu (supra) is attracted, as it cannot be said that an unqualified candidate though senior, cannot be overlooked for holding the charge of Headmaster, only because of the seniority of the respondent no.4. Page No.# 5/5 9. Though the other point raised by the respondent no.4’s counsel was that at the time of the respondent no.4 being given the charge of Headmaster, the petitioner was on deputation, the fact remains that the petitioner was a B.Ed Degree holder and on coming back to his substantive post, he had to be considered for the post of Headmaster, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was eligible for regular appointment to the said post, which was not the case of the respondent no.4. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 is not sustainable, as the respondent no.4 does not have the academic qualification to be appointed to the post of Headmaster. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for holding the charge of Headmaster and take a decision on the same, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off. JUDGE Comparing Assistant