Gauhati High Court
Suparna Sinha vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 24 November, 2020
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010156362020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4603/2020
SUPARNA SINHA
D/O- LATE SUSHIL KUMAR SINHA, R/O- AMBIKAPATTY, P.O.- G.C.
COLLEGE, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788001.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPTT. OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-
781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781019.
3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
CACHAR DIST. CIRCLE
SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788001.
4:THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION
THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON
HANS BHAWAN
(WING-II)
1
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
Page No.# 2/6
NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS N SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
Linked Case : WP(C)/3214/2019
SWAPAN KUMAR SINGHA
Address:S/O- LT JAGAT MOHAN SINGHA
R/O- LANE NO. 15
VIVEKANANDA ROAD
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788003
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
Address:REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
2:THE STATE SELECTION BOARD
Address:THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN
i.e.
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
Address:ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
Address:CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE
SILCHAR
ASSAM
5:THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
Page No.# 3/6
Address:THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON
HANS BHAWAN (WING II)
1 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI
6:SUPARNA SINGHA
Address:PRINCIPAL
DESHA BHAKTA TARUN RAM PHUKAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR (ASSAM)
PIN- 788001
7:GOVINDA CHAKRABORTY
Address:SUBJECT TEACHER
SIRAJUL ALI H.S. SCHOOL
BORKHOLA
CACHAR
PIN- 788110
8:ABHIJIT SAHA
Address:SUBJECT TEACHER
NARSING H.S.SCHOOL
SILCHAR
PIN- 788001
------------
Advocate for : MR. I H SAIKIA
Advocate for : SC
HIGHER EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.: Advocate ,
,
,
,
,
,
, appearing for 2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
Page No.# 4/6
7,
8, respectively.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
24.11.2020 Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4603/2020 and Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3214/2019. Also heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuyan, learned Standing counsel for the NCTE and Mr. SMT Chestie, learned Standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam as well as Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 in WP(C) No. 3214/2019.
2. The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the B.Ed degree of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 4603/2020 Smti Suparna Sinha is a valid B.Ed degree or not. The said writ petitioner has obtained her degree from the Silchar College of Education, Silchar. There is a Division Bench order dated 01.11.2018 in W.A. No. 354/2018 which indicates that the B.Ed degree obtained from Silchar College of Education, Silchar for a given intervening period would not be a valid degree. Based on the said judgment of the Division Bench in WP(C) No. 3214/2019 has been instituted by Sri Swapan Kumar Singha assailing the order by which Smti Suparna Singha was appointed as the regular Principal of the Desh Bhakta Tarun Ram Phookan HS School, Silchar, Cachar.
3. The core contention of Sri Swapan Kumar Singha is that as the B.Ed degree of Smti Suparna Singha is not a valid degree, therefore, she could not have been selected and appointed as a regular Principal of the School. In WP(C) No. 3214/2019 it was provided in the interim that the appointment made in favour of Smti Suparna Singha would be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition.
4. After the said observation that the appointment of Smti Suparna Singha would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition, the respondent authorities had not allowed Smti Suparna Singha to be the regular Principal and in her place the Inspector of School, Silchar Page No.# 5/6 was required to temporarily act as the In-Charge Principal of the School, which itself prima facie appears to be a little overreaching of the provisions of the Court in the order dated 28.05.2019 in WP(C) No. 3214/2019. If the Court has passed the order that it would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition, it may not be open to the respondent authorities to take different view and not allow the person concerned to work at all.
5. Be that as it may the act of the state respondents to allow the Inspector of Schools to act as the In-Charge Principal has been assailed in this WP(C) No. 4603/2020. In this writ petition, the core issue that has arisen is whether the B.Ed degree of Smti Suparna Singha is a valid degree or not. Accordingly, the NCTE has filed an affidavit on 23.11.2020 taking the specific stand that the B.Ed degree of the petitioner is a valid degree.
6. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3214/2019 raises several contentions to counter the said stand of the NCTE. In due course of time while hearing both the writ petitions, such contentions can be adjudicated upon, but for the purpose an interim arrangement as to whether Smti Suparna Singha can be allowed to function as the regular Principal of the School, we are of the view taking into consideration the specific stand of the NCTE, which is the authority to decide upon the validity or invalidity of a B.Ed degree, we provide that in the interim the writ petitioner Smti Suparna Singha be allowed to function as the regular Principal of the School until further orders. It is stated that taking advantage of situation, Sri Swapan Kumar Singha has now been made the In-Charge Principal of the School while we have the regularly appointed Principal whose appointment is assailed on the ground of having an invalid B.Ed degree. We see no reason as to why the other person should be the In-Charge Principal leaving aside the regularly appointed Principal Smti Suparna Singha.
7. Considering the matter in its entirety, let Smti Suparna Singha function as the regular Principal of the School with all accompanying benefits and the claim as to whether the B.Ed degree is valid or not will be decided in the writ petition and in the event it is decided against Smti Suparna Singha, she will have to make way for others. We are clarifying that this is not a modification of the earlier interim order inasmuch as the interim order merely provided that the appointment of Smti Suparna Singha shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and our present order also indicates the same that it shall be outcome of the writ petition.
Page No.# 6/6
8. It is being urged upon by Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3214/2019 that there was an earlier order that Smti Suparna Singha would not be paid her salary although she is the regular Principal. We modify the earlier order to that extent in the presence of all the parties.
9. Issue notice, returnable by four weeks.
10. Extra copies to the learned counsel within three days.
11. As it is a contentious matter, an endeavour shall be made to give a final consideration. As we are passing this interim order on the basis of the affidavit of the NCTE regarding the validity of the B.Ed degree of the petitioner Smti Suparna Singha and if it is found to be incorrect, the NCTE would be held responsible in the appropriate manner.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant