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 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 Date : 20.05.2026 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 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 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, bypassing the past practice and therefore, on an application made by the respondent No.4, the decision was revisited and the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 had been passed recalling the promotion of the petitioner as well as the promotion granted to the respondent No.4. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by the respondent No.4 stating that the respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner in service and although the respondent No.4 does not have the Bed degree, possession of the said degree was never a condition precedent for promoting Assistant Teachers of ASEB High School, Narangi. 10. The respondent No.4 in her affidavit had also stated that as per a resolution notified on the 14th of October, 2024, the respondent APDCL had resolved that the school would continue to follow the existing rules for promotion of teachers. By a letter dated 09.04.2025, the APDCL had further clarified that the existing promotion rules followed by APDCL for promoting Assistant Teacher to Assistant Headmaster or Headmasters is based on seniority. The promotions are subject to availability of vacancy, reservation roster and recommendation of the departmental promotion Headmaster. Page No.# 5/9 11. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the NCTE regulations, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.4 to have achieved the qualification of B.Ed before she could have been considered for promotion to the Post of Headmaster since, by the notification dated 3.09.2001 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, all teachers who were appointed prior to that notification as per the then existing recruitment qualification, would be required to acquire qualifications as prescribed in the schedule within a certain period of time. The learned counsel has thereafter referred to the notification dated 12.11.2014 to contend that for promotion of teachers, the relevant minimum qualification as specified in these two schedules would be applicable for consideration from one level to the next level. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 06.03.2025 had been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this has caused him injustice since the promotion of the petitioner was being interfered with without any notice of such interference. 13. Mr. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing for the APDCL, has submitted that the APDCL had in the past promoted the Headmasters and the Assistant Headmasters only on the basis of seniority without reference to their possessing a B.Ed qualification or otherwise and, therefore, in the present case also, seniority between the two persons under consideration ought to play the determining role. Page No.# 6/9 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, Mr. P. Mahanta, has submitted that the Rules of 2020 do not and cannot apply to the ASEB High School, Narengi, Guwahati, since it is not a Government School. The learned counsel further submits that the mandates of the NCTE had not been applied to the State of Assam at least till the year 2012. He has further submitted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to undergo the B.Ed Course during her service period, and the said course can be undertaken only when a teacher is deputed for such a course during her service by the employer. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the past practice has admittedly been to promote the senior most teacher to the post of Assistant Headmaster or Headmaster, the respondent No. 4 had a legitimate expectation to be considered for such promotion and when the same was not done, on her representation, the APDCL authorities had corrected an error which had occurred in promoting the petitioner to the Post of Headmaster. 15. The learned counsel submits that correction of an error does not need prior notice to an incumbent who may suffer due to such correction, and therefore, the ground of the petitioner regarding the absence of any notice would now be a mere formality. 16. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and I have also produced the different documents placed before this Court in support of the submissions made. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been promoted to the rank of Headmaster by the order dated 17.01.2024, and he was also given Page No.# 7/9 the benefit of pay and other allowances as applicable to the rank of Headmaster in the school, which he continued to enjoy till 06.03.2025 when the said promotion had been suddenly interfered with. 17. The order dated 06.03.2025 does not reflect in any manner the reasons for which the said order had been passed. On approach to this Court, this Court had stayed the operation of the order dated 06.03.2025, thereby meaning that the petitioner has continued to hold the rank of Headmaster. It is settled law that an order passed to the detriment of the position that an incumbent holds in service would also have repercussions, not only on his service but also on his social standing, and therefore, the Courts have always insisted upon the tendering of a notice before such a detrimental order is passed. 18. In the present case, it is apparent that the order dated 06.03.2025, while on the one hand did not disclose any reasons for passing of the said order, on the other hand was also not preceded by any notice to the petitioner regarding the intent of the competent authority to withdraw the promotion to the rank of Headmaster. 19. The effect of the NCTE regulations on the prospect of the respondent No. 4 being considered for promotion to the next higher post, be it to the rank of Assistant Headmaster or Headmaster, has to be dealt with by the respondent authorities, since it is their stand that the Rules of 2020 would not be applicable as the school is not a Government school. 20. The admitted position is that there are no codified rules governing the Page No.# 8/9 promotions in the ASEB High School, Narengi. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner in the present case deserved a notice prior to the passing of the order dated 06.03.2025. This is not to say that the competent authority would not be in a position to pass such an order, but the requirement is to give a notice to the petitioner, explaining the grounds on which his promotion is sought to be withdrawn, which had to be served upon him, giving him an opportunity to counter such a proposal. 21. Accordingly, the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the APDCL, insofar as it relates to the withdrawal of the rank of Headmaster from the petitioner, is hereby interfered with and set aside. The respondent authorities, in case they want to withdraw the promotion granted to the petitioner, shall issue an appropriate notice to the petitioner, giving him an adequate opportunity of making a representation and of being heard in the matter before such withdrawal is effected. 22. The respondent No.4 shall also be informed about such notice, if any, served upon the petitioner and shall also be granted an opportunity to be heard before any decision is arrived at by the competent authority. 23. Since the matter relates to the holding of the post of Headmaster of a particular school, the authorities are expected to take a decision on the matter within a period of 6 weeks from today, in case they want to proceed afresh to withdraw the promotion of the petitioner. Till such time, the status quo as of today shall be maintained. Page No.# 9/9 24. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant