Gauhati High Court
Harsha Mohan Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 27 May, 2020
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010030172019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1052/2019
1:HARSHA MOHAN SARMA
S/O- SRI SURENDRA NATH SARMA, R/O- VILL- KHATA, RUPIA BATHAN,
P.O. CHAMATA, DIST- NALBARI, P.S. BELSOR, PIN- 781306, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECONDARY
EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR
SECONDARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
ASSAM
3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
N.D.C.NALBARI
NALBARI
PIN- 781335
ASSAM
4:GAJENDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR
POST GRADUATE TEACHER
KAMPITH SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
KAITHALKUCHI
P.O. KAITHALKUCHI
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN- 78137
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Date : 27-05-2020
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
None appears for the writ petitioner. Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel appears for the Secondary Education Department of the Government of Assam. Office Note of 20.06.2019 shows that the AD card had been received back after being served on the respondent No.4, but in spite of such service, none appears for the respondent No.4.
2. The order dated 07.02.2019, by which the respondent No.4 Sri Gajendra Mohan Mazumdar, Lecturer of Kampith Senior Secondary School was allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Principal of the school along with financial powers, is being assailed in this writ petition.
3. Although in the office order dated 30.12.2010 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam in respect of the staff pattern of Kampith Junior College, District Nalbari, the respondent No.4 Sri Gajendra Mohan Mazumdar is shown to be senior to the writ petitioner Sri Harsha Mohan Sarma, but the office order itself indicates that the respondent No.4 Sri Gajendra Mohan Mazumdar is having the qualification of M.A whereas Sri Harsha Mohan Sarma has the qualification of M.A, B.Ed. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 is as to who between them should be the in-charge Principal of the school.
4. The law in this respect has been settled by this Court in a catena of decisions that even in order to be in-charge Principal of a school, the incumbent concerned must have the necessary qualification to be appointed as a regular Principal of the school. Admittedly, under the Rules, the required qualification for the post of a regular Principal is, amongst others, to have the qualification of B.Ed/B.T. Therefore, we are to construe that the B.Ed/B.T is an essential qualification for the post of Principal and if any person does not have the said qualification, he would have to be considered to be ineligible for the post of Principal.
5. As noticed above, the respondent No.4 does not have the B.Ed degree and therefore, it is to be construed that he is not eligible for a regular appointment to the post of Principal and consequently, he is also not ineligible to be even appointed as an in-charge Principal of the school. On the other Page No.# 3/3 hand, the petitioner has the qualification of M.A B.Ed and therefore, it is to be understood that he has all the requisite qualification for being appointed as a regular Principal of the School. In fact, the office order of 30.12.2010 shows that none of the teachers who are senior to the petitioner have the qualification of B.Ed. Consequently, a reading of the office order of 30.12.2010 would show that the petitioner is the senior most eligible Lecturer in the school, who would be qualified to hold the post of Principal of the School. Consequently, we are of the view that the writ petitioner would also have a legal right in his favour for being the regular Principal or to that effect the in-charge Principal of the school on the basis of his qualification and seniority both taken into account conjointly.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 07.02.2019 not only appears to be patently illegal, but it also violates the legal right of the writ petitioner to be the in-charge Principal of the Kampith Senior Secondary School.
7. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam is accordingly directed to re-visit the order dated 07.02.2019 and pass a fresh order by taking into account all the attending facts and circumstances. The requirement be done within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. PN Goswami, learned standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department for onward transmission of the same to the Director of Secondary Education for doing the needful.
The writ petition is allowed to the extend indicated above.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant