Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010075362026 2026:GAU-AS:9732 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1400/2026 SMT BINITA KALITA W/O LATE MR. BIPUL GOSWAMI RESIDENT OF ATULYA GARDEN RESIDENCY ANANDA NAGAR SIX MILE GUWAHATI - 781022 DISTRICT - KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) ASSAM (CIVIL) SECRETARIAT BLOCK - C DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006 ASSAM. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -781019 ASSAM. 3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION GUWAHATI - 781019 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/14 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT CIRCLE PANBAZAR DISTRICT - KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI -781001 ASSAM. 5:MRS MONOWARA BEGUM ASSISTANT TEACHER (HINDI) GOPAL BORO GOVERNMENT H.S. SCHOOL DISPUR GUWAHATI -781006 DISTRICT - KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. M SARMA Advocate for : SC SEC. EDU. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 16/07/2026 Heard Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P Das, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. R C Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition was taken up for final consideration and is being disposed of by the present order. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an Page No.# 3/14 order dated 27.02.2026, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, allowing the respondent No. 5, herein, to act as the Principal in-charge of Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, Dispur, w.e.f. 01.03.2026. 4. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner on being selected by the Assam Public Service Commission, was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher, vide an order dated 06.05.1997 and posted in such capacity to Government Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Tezpur. The petitioner was, thereafter, transferred and posted in the same capacity to Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, Dispur, vide an order dated 24.06.2004. The respondent No. 5, herein, was appointed as a Graduate Teacher and posted to Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, Dispur and had joined her services in such capacity on 19.01.2006. The incumbent in the post of Principal of Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, having been slated to retire from her services, w.e.f. 28.02.2026, on attaining the age of superannuation, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide an order dated 27.02.2026 allowed the respondent No. 5, herein, to hold the charge of the post of Principal of Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, w.e.f. 01.03.2026. The petitioner by contending that the respondent No. 5 was junior to her in service and accordingly, was not entitled to be so allowed to act as the Principal of the school, ignoring the case of the petitioner, had instituted the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner admittedly, having been appointed, w.e.f. 06.05.1997, is senior to the respondent No. 5, who was so appointed only in the year 2006. Page No.# 4/14 5.1 Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, herein, had acquired all the requisite eligibility criteria for being promoted to the cadre of Principal in a Government Higher Secondary School and accordingly, she was eligible for being considered for holding the post of Principal on in- charge basis, when a vacancy against the same had arisen in Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School on the incumbent therein, proceeding on superannuation. 5.2 Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the B.Ed. qualification, being one of the prescribed eligibility criteria for promotion to the cadre of Principal, the petitioner had acquired the said qualification by pursuing the course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (in short, IGNOU). He submits that the said B.Ed. Degree having been obtained by the petitioner from a recognized University, the same cannot be invalidated. 5.3 Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, having pursued the said course on Distance Education Mode, there was no dislocation occasioning in the services rendered by the petitioner in the matter and accordingly, the petitioner being senior to the respondent No. 5 and also having all the requisite eligibility criteria, mandated for promotion to the cadre of Principal of a Government Higher Secondary School, the case of the petitioner could not have been ignored by the respondent authorities, while considering the case of the incumbents in the feeder cadre for being permitted to hold the charge of the post of Principal on a vacancy arising therein, in the school, wherein, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are presently serving. 5.4 Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Tankeswar Page No.# 5/14 Nath Vs. State of Assam and Others [order dated 18.12.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 5419/2023]. 6. Ms. P Das, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, has fairly submitted that from the dates of recruitment of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, it is seen that it is the petitioner, herein, who is senior to the respondent No. 5. She submits that the petitioner was not considered for being permitted to hold the charge of the post of Principal of Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School on a vacancy arising therein, only on the ground that the petitioner had proceeded to prosecute her B.Ed. course from IGNOU without first receiving due permission from the respondent authorities. She submits that the petitioner in proceeding to prosecute her B.Ed. course without prior permission, had violated the provisions of Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, referred to as the Rules of 1965). 7. Mr. Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, submits that the petitioner having acquired her B.Ed. Degree by prosecuting a course of study from IGNOU, without obtaining prior permission for prosecuting such course of study from the respondent authorities, had admittedly violated the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 and accordingly, the said degree possessed by the petitioner even if held to be valid, cannot be permitted to be so reckoned for the purpose of granting further service advancement in respect of the petitioner, herein. He submits that the said degree being not permissible to be so considered for appointing the petitioner on regular basis as Principal of a Government Higher Secondary School, the said degree would also not be permissible to be so considered for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal Page No.# 6/14 of Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School. 7.1 Mr. Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, has submitted that the petitioner having been transferred from Government Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Tezpur to Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School in the year 2004, the petitioner cannot reckon the services rendered by her prior to 2004 for the purpose of determining her eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Principal of a Government Higher Secondary School. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner cannot be deemed to be senior to the respondent No. 5 in Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School. 7.2 Mr. Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, by referring to the Gradation List brought on record as Annexure-F to the writ petition by the petitioner, submits that the same does not contain the signature of any departmental authority and the said Gradation List would not mandate to be reckoned for the purpose of determining the lis arising in the present writ petition. 7.3 Mr. Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, has further submitted that the respondent No. 5, having been temporarily allowed to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, till a regular incumbent is appointed against the same, now cannot be permitted to be replaced by the petitioner, herein, inasmuch as, it is a settled position of law that an adhoc appointee cannot be replaced by an another adhoc appointee. 7.4 In this connection, Mr. Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel, Page No.# 7/14 appearing for the respondent No. 5 has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and Another Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Others [Order dated 21.04.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088/2022]. 7.5 In the above premises, Mr. Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, submits that the interim directions operating in the present writ petition would be mandated to be vacated and the respondent No. 5 be permitted to continue to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, till the post is filled up on regular basis. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher on her selection by the Assam Public Service Commission, vide an order dated 06.05.1997. The petitioner on her such appointment was posted to the Government Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Tezpur. The petitioner continued in the said school till the year 2004 and thereafter, the petitioner vide an order dated 24.06.2004 was transferred and posted on her own request to Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, Dispur. The respondent No. 5, herein, admittedly was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in the graduate scale of pay, vide an order dated 19.01.2006 and on such appointment was posted to Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, Dispur. 10. The date of appointment of the petitioner is much prior to that of the respondent No. 5. Even if it is held that on the petitioner was transferred and Page No.# 8/14 posted to Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, on her own request, the petitioner having joined Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, immediately in pursuance of the order dated 24.06.2004, her seniority would be permissible to be so reckoned in the said school, w.e.f. her date of such joining. However, it is to be noted that on the date of joining by the petitioner in Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, the respondent No. 5 was not even borne in her service. The respondent No. 5 was appointed in a Government Higher Secondary School only vide an order dated 19.01.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner for all intent and purpose shall be required to be construed to be senior to the respondent No. 5 in Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School. 11. Having noticed the service status of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, this Court finds that the said position was not appreciated by the respondent No. 2, while issuing the impugned order dated 27.02.2026, permitting the respondent No. 5 to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, on a vacancy arising therein, on the incumbent therein, proceeding on superannuation, w.e.f. 28.02.2026. 12. From the materials brought on record, it is revealed that the petitioner was deprived of holding the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, only on the ground that the petitioner had pursued her Bachelor of Education Degree from IGNOU, without obtaining prior permission from the respondent authorities. 13. It is not disputed that the B.Ed. Degree obtained by the petitioner from IGNOU was so obtained by her from a recognized University. However, the respondents had ignored the same only on the ground that the petitioner had Page No.# 9/14 proceeded to prosecute her said course without obtaining prior permission from the departmental authorities. The respondent authorities had accordingly, held the petitioner to have violated the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 and consequently, in spite of being senior to the respondent No. 5, the case of the petitioner was ignored and the respondent No. 5 was permitted to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question. 14. The denial to the petitioner of an opportunity to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, being so made with reference to the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965, the same being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “13. Prosecution of studies by Government servants in educational institutions. - No Government servant while in Government service shall join or attend any educational institution for the purpose of preparing himself for or shall appear at any examination of a recognized-Board or University without obtaining previous permission from the appointing authority: Provided that the appointing authority may refuse such permission in the interest of the public service on consideration that such joining or attending any educational institution or appearing at any examination may create dislocation of work or stand in the way of the efficient discharge of his duties by the Government servant concerned. Permission of study leave or any other kind of leave granted for the purpose of joining or attending any educational institution shall be subject to the condition that the Government servant shall not seek election to or hold any electist office in Students' Union or other Association of Student’s except Association formed for purely literary, academic or athletic pursuits.” 15. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 mandate that no Page No.# 10/14 Government employee while in service, shall join or shall attend any educational institution for preparing himself or shall appear at an examination of a recognized Board or University without obtaining previous permission from the appointing authority. The provisions of Rule 13 mandate that prior permission shall be obtained by a Government employee for prosecuting any course of study. The violation of Rule 13 would amount to a misconduct for which the employer may draw a disciplinary proceeding against the government employee. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 cannot be invoked to invalidate any degree acquired by a Government employee, the course of study for which, the Government employee had prosecuted from a recognized institution, on the ground that it was so pursued without previous permission from the authorities. 16. This Court in the case of Tankeswar Nath (supra), on a consideration of the issue as arising in the present writ petitions, had drawn the following conclusions: “6. The said issue is no longer res-integra and this Court, vide order, dated 28.09.2023, passed in IA(c)2615/2023 [Smt. Mouchumi Saharia v. Smriti Rekha Kalita & 3 ors.] had held that if a Degree had been obtained without prior permission of the appointing authority, the same would be a misconduct under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 and it being a misconduct, the relevant proceedings of law applicable against the candidate, would be a proceeding against such candidate under the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, but the same by itself cannot invalidate the otherwise valid degree obtained from the respective Universities and further, that the Degree obtained from a University is governed by Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 7. On application of the decision of this Court in the case of Mouchumi Saharia Page No.# 11/14 (supra); to the issues arising in the present case, it is clear that the petitioner having been validly granted a Masters Degree in Assamese and the said Degree having been obtained from an institution recognized by the University Grants Commission, the respondent authorities do not have the jurisdiction and authority to invalidate the said Degree obtained by the petitioner and such invalidation cannot be done even impliedly. The effect of the denial of the benefits of holding the charge of in-charge Principal of the said school to the petitioner in spite of being the senior-most Teacher of the school, amounts to an invalidation of the Degree obtained by the petitioner in Krishna Kanta Handique State Open University, which is impermissible. 8. Accordingly, the order, dated 30.03.2023, having been issued only on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to hold the charge of the post of Principal, Sarthebari Higher Secondary School, Sarthebari, on account of he having obtained his M.A. Degree without prior permission from the competent authorities for undergoing such a course; stands interfered with. 9. The M.A. Degree acquired by the petitioner having been so acquired from a recognized University; the said Degree is otherwise valid and acceptable in law and accordingly, the petitioner having fulfilled the eligibility criteria as mandated for recruitment to the post of principal of the school in question, under the provisions of Rule 12(3) of the said Rules of 2018; a legal right has accrued to the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal, Sarthebari Higher Secondary School, Sarthebari.” 17. Applying the decision of this Court in the case of Tankeswar Nath (supra), to the facts of the present writ petitions, this Court finds that the petitioner, herein, had acquired her B.Ed. Degree from a recognized University. The said degree is otherwise valid and acceptable in law and accordingly, the petitioner is found to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria as mandated in the matter for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Principal in a Government Higher Secondary School. Accordingly, a legal right is found to have accrued to the Page No.# 12/14 petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal of Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School. 18. This Court notices that in the present writ petition, it has not been brought on record that any departmental proceeding stood initiated against the petitioner as of 27.02.2026, basing on an allegation of having committed a misconduct by violating the provisions of Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that it is the decision of this Court in the case of Tankeswar Nath (supra) that would be applicable in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner has a legal right to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, till the same is so filled up on regular basis. Consequently, the order dated 27.02.2026, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, allowing the respondent No. 5, herein, to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, would mandate an interference. 20. At this stage, this Court would examine the plea raised by Mr. R C Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 that the order dated 27.02.2026 would not mandate an interference from this Court, inasmuch as, the same would result in an adhoc being replaced by an another adhoc. 21. The respondent authorities, while considering the case of the eligible teachers in the school in question, for being permitted to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school, had ignored the case of the petitioner in clear violation of the decisions of this Court in this connection. Otherwise a valid B.Ed. Page No.# 13/14 Degree obtained by the petitioner was ignored only on the ground that she had not pursued the said course after receiving due permission from the respondent authorities. 22. Further, this Court while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 11.03.2026, appreciating the issue arising in the matter, had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 and directed that the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools shall hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.02.2026, being assailed in the present proceedings and this Court having found that a discrimination admittedly was made against the petitioner, herein, the said contention raised by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 5 stands rejected. 23. The decision in the case of the Manish Gupta (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, in support of his such submission, has been perused by this Court and this Court is of the considered view that the said decision would not advance the case of the respondent No. 5, herein. Accordingly, a detailed discussion thereon, is not made in the present order. 24. In view of the conclusions drawn by this Court, hereinabove; the order dated 27.02.2026, passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam stands set aside. 25. This Court having interfered with the order dated 27.02.2026, the matter stands remanded back to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, who shall now pass an appropriate order, allowing the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal of Gopal Boro Government Higher Secondary School, Page No.# 14/14 Dispur. 26. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam, shall pass an appropriate order in compliance with the directions passed by this Court, hereinabove, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner, herein. 27. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant