Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010251072023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6585/2023 DEEPAK DAS SON OF LATE DIGENDRA CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHYAMBARI, P.O.- NICHILAMARI, P.S.- TANGLA, DISTRICT- UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN- 784522. PRESENTLY SERVING AS THE ASSISTANT TEACHER, NICHILAMARI M.E. SCHOOL, VILLAGE- NICHILAMARI, P.O.- NICHILAMARI, P.S.- TANGLA, DISTRICT- UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN- 784522. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR BTAD/BTR ASSAM. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BTC KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER UDALGURI DISTRICT- UDALGURI CIRCLE- UDALGURI ASSAM PIN- 784509. Page No.# 2/5 5:PANKAJ SARKAR SON OF LATE ANIL SARKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GURIHATI P.O.- KHOIBARI P.S.- KHOIRABARI DIST.- UDALGURI PIN- 784522 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI, MS. A BEGUM,MS. P K ZANNAT Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR. C. SHIL (R-5),P BURAGOHAIN (R-5),MR S C DAS (R-5),SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 21.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Ms. D. Bangshiary, learned counsel appearing on behalf Mr. S. C. Das, learned counsel for the State respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 03.07.2023 issued by the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, allowing the respondent No. 5 to hold the charge of Headmaster of Nichilamari ME School. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 is junior to the petitioner and as such, could not have been allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster, overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. Page No.# 3/5 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that Nichilamari LP School had been amalgamated with Nichilamari ME School on 22.01.2018 and in pursuance to Clause 16 of the Scheme for amalgamation and merger of different schools issued by the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, vide OM dated 03.08.2021, the teachers of the two amalgamated schools could not lose their seniority. 5. Clause 16 of the OM dated 03.08.2021 is reproduced herein below as follows:- “16. Gradation List:-Each of the teachers shall be the teacher of the higher school after amalgamation/merger and their status will be revised. After amalgamation/merger the gradation list of School or District, as the case may be, has to be revised by incorporating the names of teachers against the higher school in accordance with his/her qualification and status. He/she will get the seniority as before, and his/her name has to be placed in the appropriate place, in such a way that he/she does not lose his/her seniority.” 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that interestingly the seniority of the petitioner has been counted from the date of amalgamation of the two schools, i.e. 22.01.2018, while the seniority of the respondent No. 5 has been counted from the date of his initial appointment in the Nichilamari ME School, i.e. on 24.01.2015. 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that if the petitioner’s seniority had been counted from the date of his initial appointment in Nichilamari LP School, the petitioner would have been senior, as he had joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 20.10.1993. Page No.# 4/5 8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the forwarding letter dated 07.06.2023 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Udalguri, the combined gradation list of the amalgamated Nichilamari ME Schools, shows that the petitioner is at serial No. 2, while the respondent No. 5 is at serial No. 3. 9. However, in para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3 on 14.08.2024, it has been stated that the district authority had sent another gradation list of the school, which has been reflected in the report of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Khoirabari, vide No.KBE/MISE-15/8469 dated 02.05.2023, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown at serial No. 5, while the name of the respondent No. 5 is shown at serial No. 3. However, the said gradation list is not produced by the State respondents even till today. 10. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the seniority of the Assistant Teachers are required to be counted from the date of their initial appointment in their erstwhile schools, prior to their amalgamation. As such, the petitioner would have been senior to the respondent No. 5 and accordingly been given the charge of headmaster of the amalgamated school, instead of the respondent No. 5. 11. Ms. D. Bangshiary, learned counsel appearing on behalf Mr. S. C. Das, learned counsel for the State respondent No. 5 submits that there is no infirmity with the decision of the respondent authorities in making the respondent No. 5 the in-charge Headmaster of the school, keeping in view the fact that the respondent No. 5 is senior to the petitioner in service, as per paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 on 14.08.2024. Page No.# 5/5 12. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the BTC submits that the entire issue of seniority may be decided by the Director, BTC, inasmuch as, there seems to be a contradiction in the seniority list submitted by the district authorities. 13. Mr. S. N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D. Bangshiary, learned counsel appearing on behalf Mr. S. C. Das, learned counsel for the State respondent No. 5 submit that they have got no objection to the same. 14. In view of the consent of the parties, the Director, BTC shall examine the issue as to whether the petitioner or the respondent No. 5 is senior in the amalgamated Nichilamari ME School and as to whether the seniority has to be counted from the date of initial appointment in the schools. The same should be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and give reasons as to the basis for the decision to be taken by him. 15. It is also made clear that the impugned order dated 03.07.2023, allowing the respondent No. 5 to hold the charge of Headmaster of the school will not be acted upon beyond the period of one month given to the Director, BTC, to take a decision, in terms of the order passed today, i.e., the impugned order shall be in operation for one month w.e.f. the date of receipt of this order by the Director, BTC. 16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant