Nani Bhusan Roy vs State of Assam and Others

P.G. Agarwal, J.—Heard Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, Kamaluddin Ahmed, and also heard Mr. Goswami, learned Government Advocate.

The main crux in this writ petition is regarding holding of the charge of the office of the Principal of Marjatkandi Public Higher Secondary School in the district of Karimgang. The post fell vacant in the year 1994 and for the last 9 years some stop-gap arrangement are being made.

The case of the petitioner Shri Nani Bhusan Roy is that he had joined the service on 17.7.1967 and being the senior most teacher serving the school, he should have been allowed to hold the post as In-charge Principal of the said School till the regular Principal is appointed. However, vide impugned. Notification dated 4th of March, 2000, Respondent No. 4 Kamaluddin Ahmed, Subject Teacher in the said School was allowed to hold the routine duty as In-Charge of Vice Principal and for superanntion of S.K. Dey, Principal In-Charge, respondent No. 4 was allowed to hold the charge. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in this writ petition for a direction to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to hold the charge of Principal.

Misc. Case No. 273/2001 was filed by the Respondent No. 4 for vacation of interim order and vide order dated 20.3.2001, this Court provided that considering the length of service of the petitioner, he should be allowed to hold the charge of the Principal irrespective of fact that the Respondent No. 4 has got higher educational qualification. The said order was challenged in the Writ Appeal, but no relief was granted to the Respondent No. 4. Thus Respondent No. 4 admittedly is not holding the charge of the Principal in the said School at present. The petitioner claims that at present he holds the charge of the Principal. But it is informed by Mr. Sarma, that the Inspector of Schools is looking for the office of the Principal of the said school. This sorry state of affairs has been allowed to continue due to inaction on the part of State by.... vacant an important post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School, which has remained unfilled since 1994. The post is required to be filled up in regular manner and not by any adhoc appointment. We, therefore, direct the Respondents/State Government to fill up the post of Principal of the said School in a regular manner within a period of 4(four) months from the date of this order.

So far the prayer of the petitioner for holding the post of In-charge Principal is concerned, there is no dispute at the bar that the petitioner had joined the service on 17.7.1967 in a Graduate cadre and he was given the Graduate Scale with effect from 1.10.1977. The Respondent No. 4 on other hand is a M.A. in Arabic and he joined as a Subject Teacher on 8.2.1980. Thus, we find the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 belonged to different cadre of service. The petitioner belongs to Graduate cadre of service and Respondent No. 4 is a subject Teacher and both of them are eligible for appointment as Principal of a Higher Secondary School in view of their length of service. There is no question of fixing inter-se seniority between them. The question arises for determination is in such a situation, we should be asked to be as In-charge Principal or Vice Principal. The Respondent No. 4 claims that because of higher educational qualification and higher pay scale provided to him as Subject Teacher, he is entitled and he should be given the job. The petitioner on the other hand claims that being the senior most teacher in terms of length of service, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Incharge Principal.

Shri Sarma fairly submits that both the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 are eligible for appointment to the post of Principal. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the length of service in a particular School should be the sole consideration for allowing a person to hold the charge of Principal or Vice Principal as the case may be provided he is otherwise eligible and considered fit to hold the post. The higher educational qualification may be considered for appointment in a regular post. But that can not over-ride the length of service of other person.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents/authorities to full up the post of Principal within a period of 4(four) months and till such appointment is made, the petitioner Shri Nani Bhusan Roy will be allowed to hold the charge of Principal of the said School. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of.