Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010061312025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1649/2025 THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE DR SARVEPOLLI RADHAKRISHNAN TEACHERS TRAINING AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE CHAMATA, NALBARI REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED MEMBER, SRI AMARENDRA CHOUDHURY, 66 YEARS, S/O LATE DANDADHAR CHOUDHURY, VILL- CHAMATA, P.O.-PASCHIM CHAMATA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM-781306 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION G-7 SECTOR-10 DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 3:THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR JALUKBARI DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM-781014 4:THE DIRECTOR OF STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (SCERT) KAHILIPARA Page No.# 2/7 GUWAHATI-19 ASSAM 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NALBARI DISTRICT NALBARI ASSAM-781335 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NALBARI DISTRICT CIRCLE NALBARI ASSAM-781335 7:THE PROJECT CHAMATA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VILL AND P.O.- CHAMATA P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI PIN-781306 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI PRAMOD CH. DUTTA S/O LT. CHITTA RANJAN DUTTA R/O WARD NO. 11 PALLA ROAD NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM-78133 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU, MR. S ROY (FOR CAVEATOR),SC, SCERT, ASSAM,SC, N C T E,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 02.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.7. Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent no.3 (Gauhati University), Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5 and Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2 (NCTE). Page No.# 3/7 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 issued by the District Commissioner, Nalbari, by which the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle has been directed to take over the charge of Principal of Dr. Sarvepolli Radhakrishnan Teachers Training & Research Institute, Chamata, Nalbari (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Institute being an unaided private Institution, the District Commissioner has got no competence or authority to direct the Inspector of Schools to take charge of the post of Principal. 3. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.7, which is the Sponsoring Body of the Institute, submits that as the Institute is an unaided private Institute, the Sponsoring Authority has the final say in deciding who is to be appointed as Principal and they do not have any issue with the Inspector of Schools taking over the charge of Principal, as the earlier Principal was 66 years old, besides being the candidate of the petitioner, who was having allegations of mismanagement of the Institute made against him. 4. Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati University submits that the appointment of the Principal of a Private B.Ed College affiliated to Gauhati University, is to be based on an interview, for which a panel of experts is constituted by the Governing Body of the College. He submits that neither the Sponsoring Body nor the District Commissioner has the authority to appoint a Principal of a private unaided college. Page No.# 4/7 5. Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the NCTE submits that the Sponsoring Body of the college and the District Commissioner do not have any competence to appoint an In-charge Principal of an unaided private college. It is only the Governing Body who can appoint a Principal. 6. Mr. B. Deuri, learned counsel for the District Commissioner submits that the only reason the District Commissioner had directed the Inspector of Schools to hold the charge of Principal of the Institute, was due to apprehensions of there being a law and order problem. Further, as intervention in the school administration had been sought for by the Sponsoring Body of the Institute, i.e. respondent no.7, the District Commissioner had intervened only at the request of the respondent no.7. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. The fact that the Institute is a private unaided Institute is not disputed by any other parties. The only question that has to be decided is as to whether the petitioner, who is the Governing Body of the Institute, is the authority who can appoint the Principal of the Institute or whether the District Commissioner and the respondent no.7 have the competence to appoint the Principal of the Institute. 9. Regulation 4(V)(a) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “2007 Regulations”), provides that the appointment of the Faculty Page No.# 5/7 members and the Principal of a College that prepares teachers for Upper Primary or Middle Level, Secondary and Senior Secondary Level Schools, shall be made on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, constituted as per the policy of the UGC/Affiliating University/Affiliating Body. In the present case the Institute has been affiliated with the Gauhati University and the Academic Registrar of the Gauhati University has issued a Certificate dated 27.03.2025, which states that the Principal of a private B.Ed college affiliated to the Gauhati University, is to be appointed by the President of the Governing Body of the college, which is based on an interview, for which a panel of experts is constituted by the said Governing Body and approved by the Gauhati University. The Certificate dated 27.03.2025 issued by the Academic Registrar of the Gauhati University is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X. 10. Regulations 7(b) of the 2007 Regulations provides that the Institution shall have a Managing Committee constituted as per the Rules, if any of the Affiliating University. In the absence of such Rules, the Institution shall constitute a Managing Committee on it’s own. The Committee shall comprise of representatives of the Sponsoring Society/Trust, Educationists and Teacher Educators, representatives of the affiliating University and of the staff. 11. A reading of Regulation 7 (b) clearly shows that the Sponsoring Body can only be a constituent of the Governing Body and it cannot, on it’s own, run the administration of a private college or appoint the faculty members or the Principal. Thus, Annexure-X and the 2007 Regulations clearly show that it is only Page No.# 6/7 the Governing Body of a college that will have the final say in the appointment of a Principal of an unaided private college. 12. The above being said, the question that still needs to be answered, is whether the District Commissioner had the competence to appoint the Inspector of Schools as In-charge Principal of the said institution. In this respect, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Another vs. Tulsiram Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398, wherein it has held that a source of power must exists for it’s exercise. In the present case, the respondent State Government and the respondent no.7 have not been able to show the source of power under which the District Commissioner, Nalbari had empowered the Inspector of Schools to take charge of the post of Principal of the Institute. Further, the Gauhati University and NCTE have taken a stand that it is only the Governing Body who can appoint a Principal. As such, in the absence of any source of power being shown, the action of the District Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly the same is set aside. 14. In view of the reasons stated above, the petitioner, who is the Governing Body of the Institute shall appoint a Principal, as per the policy of the UGC/affiliating University. In terms of the Note to Regulation 4(II)(i) of the 2007 Regulations, the petitioner should ensure that no person who is beyond 65 years should be appointed as Principal of the Institute, even on an In-charge basis. As the petitioners have already published an Advertisement dated 12.03.2025, for appointment of a Principal of the Institute, the petitioner shall ensure that a Principal is appointed within 6 (six) weeks from today. In the Page No.# 7/7 meantime, the senior-most Teacher of the Institute may be appointed as the In- Charge Principal by the petitioner. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off. JUDGE Comparing Assistant