Dr. Jibendu Dutta vs State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Heard Mr. B Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 being the Director

SCERT, Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 being the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary

Education Department and Mr. I Alam, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 being the NCTE.

The petitioner is a senior lecturer in the District Institute of Education and Training (for short, DIET) and for the purpose of promotion to the post of

Principal in the DIETs, the petitioner claims to be the seniormost eligible senior lecturer. The candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of

Principal was also considered by the departmental promotion committee (for short, DPC) held on 04.02.2021 in the office chamber of the

Commissioner and Secretary of the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department for filling up of 18 vacant posts of Principal in the

DIETs. The fourth paragraph of the minutes of the DPC held on 04.02.2021 refers to a judgment dated 09.04.2019 of this Court in WP(C)

No.2293/2019 wherein it was held that the posts of Principal of DIETs be filled up by following the provisions of the DIET Service Rules 2010 and not

to make the new NCTE guidelines requiring the qualification of Ph.D degree applicable for the purpose. Accordingly, in the said selection two other

candidates Smti Bharati Das and Smti Binita Baishya were selected for promotion as Principals although they did not have the Ph.d degree.

It is stated that in the meantime, both the aforesaid two persons who were appointed as Principals had superannuated from service which has

resulted in two further vacancies having arisen in the posts of Principal of DIETs. The petitioner points out that the requirement of earlier DPC of

04.02.2021 to include candidates without Ph.d was only a one-time practice. But inspite of it, the petitioner has raised an apprehension that in the

forthcoming selection for the posts of Principal the same practice may be followed and the requirement for Ph.d may be ignored.

Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the DIET raises the objection that the said apprehension is pre-matured at this stage and secondly, if the petitioner

is the seniormost eligible senior lecturer he would definitely be considered for promotion to the post of Principal whenever such selection process is

initiated.

In view of such statement, we do not find any further requirement of continuing with this writ petition and close the same with the observation that

whenever the process for promotion to the posts of Principal DIETs is undertaken by the respondent authorities, the case of the petitioner shall also be

given a due consideration along with others strictly in accordance with the Rules in force.

In the event, the respondents find from the records that the petitioner is not the seniormost eligible lecturer or he is otherwise ineligible for such

consideration, it would be open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the same.

In the above terms, this writ petition stands closed.