Page No.# 1/9 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) Page No.# 2/9 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 Page No.# 3/9 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, reported in 2007 SCeJ 003 and in Manish Gupta and Another vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3084 3088/2022 {Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12946 12950/2017}. Under such circumstances, Mr. Atia has Page No.# 4/9 contended to allow this petition. 4.4. However, Mr. Atia submits that he has no objection if the respondent No. 4 is appointed as regular Headmaster of the said school. His objection is only replacing the present petitioner, who was holding the charge of Headmaster In- Charge of the said school, with another ad-hoc arrangement. 5. Per contra, Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 submits that the respondent No. 2, Director of Secondary Education, has filed its affidavit-in-opposition and its stand is that the respondent No. 4 possesses B.Sc./B.Ed. degree and is senior most Assistant Teacher, as per the revised seniority list, dated 16.07.2025, submitted by the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon and he was found eligible to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge in view of the Rule 14(2) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Services Rules, 2018 (2018 Rules hereinafter) and therefore, he was allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge relieving the present petitioner, who does not possess the same. She further submits that there is no merit in this petition and therefore, she has contended to dismiss the same. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, submits that the principle of ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee is not applicable in the present case. 6.1. Referring to a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Jagannath Pegu vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2007 (3) GLT 389, Mr. Bhuyan submits 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 said post. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that the aforesaid proposition of law is followed in the case of Page No.# 5/9 Gobin Sarmah vs. State of Assam and Others, in W.P.(C) No. 2621/2022 and the said decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Samir Mazumdar vs. State of Assam and Others, in WA No. 124/2022. 6.2. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that the present petitioner is not eligible for being posted as regular Headmaster of the school as he does not possess the B.Ed. degree, which is a must for being appointed as regular Headmaster and as such, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not come into his assistance. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that the impugned order, dated 29.07.2025, was passed as a corrective measure to rectify the order dated 09.10.2018, by which the present petitioner was allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge of Kashori High School. Under the given circumstances, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the impugned order requires no interference of this Court and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 29.07.2025. Also gone through the order dated 09.10.2018, by which the petitioner herein was allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge of Kashori High School. 8. The basic facts, which are emerged from the pleadings of the parties and also from the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, are not in dispute. It appears that one Md. Mohiuddin, was working as Headmaster of Kashori High School. He suffered demise on 07.09.2018. Thereafter, the Inspector of Schools, NDC, Nagaon had submitted a proposal for placing of Headmaster In-Charge of Kashori High School, vide his letter No Page No.# 6/9 IS/NDC/PROV/AAP/HM/2018/ 5282, dated 12.09.2018. 8.1. Thereafter, the present petitioner was allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge of Kashori High School, vide office order No. GB- EST/App/FP/39/2013/274, dated 09.10.2018, as the respondent No. 4 Shri Mintu Kakoti, B.Sc., Assistant Teacher of the said school had submitted an NOC expressing his unwillingness to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge of Kashori High School. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 had obtained B.Ed. degree in 2021 and subsequently, he claimed to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge of the said school. And he also had filed one WP(C) No. 1288/2023, before this Court claiming seniority and seeking to be considered for the post of Headmaster In-Charge. 8.2. Thereafter, pursuant to the order 10.03.2023, being passed in the said writ proceeding a hearing was conducted on 12.06.2023, and a speaking order was issued by the respondent No. 2, vide office order No. GB- EST/Appt/FP/5/2022/142, dated 09.08.2023 and the claim of the respondent No. 4 was rejected. Then being aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 had filed another case, being WP(C) No. 2891/2024. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 had called for fresh seniority list of the teachers of the said school from the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon, vide letter No. E-645647/64, dated 21.05.2025. 8.3. It also appears that the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon, vide letter No. IS/NDC/AAP/PRINHM/2025/2912, dated 16/07/2025, had submitted the fresh seniority list of teachers of Kashori High School, Nagaon. Then having found that Shri Mintu Kakoti, B.Sc., B.Ed., Assistant Teacher is the most eligible Assistant Teacher to hold the charge of Headmaster In-charge of Kashori High School, Nagaon, the respondent No. 2 had temporarily allowed him to act as Headmaster In-Charge of the said school along with financial power to draw and Page No.# 7/9 disburse the salary etc. of the staff of the school in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher, under F.R.49(C) vice Abdul Mutalib, Headmaster In-Charge relieved, with effect from the date of his taking over charge. 9. It is to be noted here that Rule 14(2) of the 2018 Rules provides for the eligibility criteria for the post of Headmaster/ Superintendent in High School/High Madrassa. The Rule read as under:- “(a) He must be B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. with B.T./B.Ed. degree from any recognized University. In respect of Hindi Teachers having degree qualification, the Hindi 'Parangat' and 'Nishanat' shall be considered instead of B.T./B.Ed.; (b) He must have at least 10 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher." 10. Thus, from a cursory perusal of the Rule indicates that in order to be appointed as Headmaster of a School, the incumbent must have at least 10 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher, besides holding B.A./B.Sc./B.Com., with B.T./B.Ed. degree from any recognized University. 11. However, in the instant case, though the petitioner has no B.T./B.Ed. degree, he was allowed to act as Headmaster In-Charge, vide order dated 09.10.2018, under F.R. 49(C), vice then Headmaster In-Charge who suffered demise on 07.09.2018, on the ground that the respondent No. 4 was not willing to hold the charge of Headmaster In-Charge. The respondent No. 4, thereafter, acquired B.Ed. degree and claimed for the same. And indisputable, he is the senior most Assistant Teacher of the Kashori High School, Nagaon. He possessed B.Sc. degree and also possesses B.Ed. degree. Page No.# 8/9 12. It is to be noted here that in the case of Jagannath Pegu (Supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held 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. Meaning thereby, for being eligible to be considered for ad-hoc interim arrangement against a post, it is only a person who satisfies the eligibility criteria mandated for being considered for promotion to the said post on regular basis can only be considered for holding such posts on in-charge basis and any person, not otherwise, eligible for being considered for promotion to such post on regular basis cannot also be considered for the purpose of holding the charge of the post pending a regular selection. 12.1. The proposition so laid down in the case of Jagannath Pegu (Supra) was subsequently been followed in the case of Gobin Sarmah (Supra) and also the proposition was endorsed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Samir Mazumdar (Supra). 13. Thus, this Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and also in the submission of Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department. 14. This Court has also considered the submission of Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the decisions of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mina Goswami (supra) and of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh (supra) and in the case of Manish Gupta (supra) referred by him. There is no quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law laid down in the said cases that one ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another employee Page No.# 9/9 who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. 14.1. But, the said proposition cannot be applied against the statutory Rules i.e. Rule 14(2) of the 2018 Rules. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner, would not come into his assistance. The present petitioner admittedly lacks requisite qualification, under the aforesaid Rules for being appointed as regular Headmaster. He is ineligible to hold the said post on regular basis. And as such, in view of the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Jagannath Pegu (Supra) and also in the case of Samir Mazumdar (Supra), this Court is of the view that the submission of Mr. Atia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be hold with. 15. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant