Gauhati High Court
Md. Abdur Rahman vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 25 April, 2017
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No.1516/2012
Md. Abdur Rahman,
Son of Mahmud Ali,
Village Sutargaon, PO: Gayan Gaon,
P.S. Dhing, District Nagaon, Assam.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam
Represented by the Secretary
to the Govt. of Assam,
Education Department,
Dispur, Guwahati: 6.
2. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam,
Kahilipara, Guwahati:19
3. The District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon, Assam
4. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Batadarava,
P.O. & PS. Batadrava, District: Nagaon, Assam.
5. Md. Azizuur Hoque,
Assistant Teacher, Sutargaon M.E. School, P.O. & PS
Batadrava, District Nagaon, Assam.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Advocates for the Petitioner : Mr. DK Saikia
Mr. PK Das
Ms. B Das
Advocates for the Respondents : Ms. R Roy Choudhury
Standing counsel,
Education Department
Date of hearing & Judgment : 25.04.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R Roychoudhury, learned Standing counsel, Education Department.
Inspite of the matter being called, none appeared for the respondent No.5, although the name of the learned counsel is indicated in the cause list.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2012 of the Director, Elementary Education Assam by which it was held that although the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.5, but he does not possess the minimum requisite qualification for promotion as Headmaster as provided in the Government Notification No.AEE.199/2009/42 dated 02.03.2010. Accordingly though the petitioner was senior to respondent No.5, the Director by the order dated 13.03.2012 had held that the respondent No.5, would be allowed to continue to act as In-charge, Headmaster of the School. On a perusal of the order dated 13.03.2012, it is seen that the Director had held that the petitioner is not duly qualified to be promoted as Headmaster, in view of the Government Notification No.AEE.199/2009/42 dated 02.03.2010.
The Government Notification No.AEE.199/2009/42 dated 02.03.2010 provides the following qualification for promotion as Headmaster of the ME School:
"5. The teacher who have passed at least Matric/HSLC, normal or have at least intermediate or its equivalent qualification or above and have successfully undergone necessary training as may be prescribed by the Department shall only be considered for promotion. However, the teacher who have completed minimum 15(fifteen) years of continuous service but no facilities have been provided to him/her for the prescribed training may also be considered for promotion provided there is nothing adverse against them."
From the perusal of the aforesaid Notification dated 02.03.2010, it is seen that the required qualification for promotion as Headmaster is at least Matric/HSLC, normal or intermediate or equivalent qualification and further to successfully undergo training as may be prescribed by the Department. The said clause (5) of the Notification dated 02.03.2010 further provides that if the teacher who had completed 15 years of continuous service but no facility has been provided to him/her for the prescribed training may also be considered for promotion as Headmaster.
In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner had not/could not undergo the said training inspite of facilities being provided by the respondent authorities. In the absence of such stands being taken, the case of the petitioner would be covered by the provision that having completed 15 years of continuous service and not provided with the prescribed training, the petitioner is duly qualified to be promoted as Headmaster. In the order of 13.03.2012, the Director had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has passed his HSLC with CPF (IGNOU) and he does not possess the required qualification of a Headmaster. But it has already been stated in the Notification dated 02.03.2010, that the only requirement is HSLC passed and there is no further requirement of any CPF(IGNOU).
The counsel for the respondents refers to the order dated 29.03.2010 of the Sarba Siksha Abhijan, wherein it is provided that the 6 months certificate course provided by the CPF(IGNOU) is not equivalent to the 3(three) years Diploma Course in B.ed. The aforesaid Notification is not relevant for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition, inasmuch as, the Notification dated 02.03.2010 does not require any B.ed. Degree for the purpose of promotion as Headmaster and the case of the petitioner had been rejected only by relying upon the said Notification dated 02.03.2010.
In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the reasons given in the Order dated 13.03.2012 is contrary to the provisions of the Notification dated 02.03.2010 and as such the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, the respondents may pass appropriate order, considering the petitioner to be senior to that of respondent No.5.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Shivani