In-Charge Headmaster Should Be Appointed Based On Seniority-Cum-Efficiency : Gauhati HC
The Gauhati Excessive Courtroom bench comprising Justice Robin Phukan held that in case of two candidates becoming a member of service on the identical date, seniority should be decided based mostly on age, with the elder candidate being handled as senior. Moreover, appointment to the publish of Headmaster should be made on the premise of seniority-cum-efficiency.
Background Information
The petitioner was appointed as a Science Graduate Trainer in Jhowdanga M.E. College underneath the Block Elementary Schooling Officer. He joined the publish on 11.02.1994 at 09:45 a.m. The respondent was additionally appointed on the identical date. He joined as a Hindi Trainer in the identical faculty. Later, the petitioner was transferred to totally different faculties in the years 2000, 2003 & 2004 within the curiosity of public service. After launch from CRCC (Cluster Useful resource Centre Coordinator) duties, the petitioner rejoined Jhowdanga M.E.M. College on 19.09.2023. On 22.10.2024, the District Elementary Schooling Officer handed an order permitting respondent to behave because the In-Cost Headmaster cum Member Secretary of Jhowdanga M.E. College. He was given full monetary powers. The District Elementary Schooling Officer cited a seniority checklist that confirmed respondent’s identify above that of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the identical, the petitioner filed the writ petition. Whereas the petition was pending, the petitioner was once more transferred to Urar Bhui M.E. College by way of order dated 11.11.2024. He was made In-Cost Headmaster there. He challenged this switch order and the court docket granted an interim keep on 18.11.2024.
It was submitted by the petitioner that each the petitioner and respondent joined service on the identical day. The petitioner’s date of beginning was 24.01.1968, which made him senior to respondent, whose date of beginning was 27.11.1972. As per the becoming a member of studies, the petitioner was older and had joined earlier in time. Due to this fact, petitioner ought to have been thought-about senior. It was additional submitted that the seniority checklist relied upon by the respondents was ready arbitrarily to deprive the petitioner of his rightful declare. The petitioner additionally relied upon the notification dated 02.03.2010 issued by the Authorities of Assam, which clearly laid down that appointment to the publish of Headmaster in Center Faculties shall be made on the premise of seniority-cum-efficiency. It was additionally said that even petitioner was transferred to different faculties within the public curiosity, his seniority would by no means be misplaced. It was additionally said by the petitioner that his switch order was handed by the ADC (Edu.) cum In-Cost DEEO, South Salmara Mankachar, who had no authority to problem the inter-school switch on any floor in view of the availability of the Sections 5(5)(6) and 6(d) of the Assam Elementary and Secondary College Academics’ (Regulation of Posting and Switch) Act, 2020.
Then again, it was submitted by the respondent that there have been a number of complaints relating to the petitioner’s efficiency and conduct from the College Administration Committee and the guardians, due to this fact the publish of In-Cost Headmaster was assigned to respondent. The appointment was made on a short-term foundation within the finest pursuits of the college’s functioning. It was additional submitted that the seniority checklist, which was ready by the earlier Headmaster and permitted by the Block Elementary Schooling Officer (BEEO), clearly positioned respondent above the petitioner.
Findings of the Courtroom
It was noticed by the court docket that each the petitioner and respondent had joined their respective posts on the identical date i.e. 11.02.1994. Nonetheless, the petitioner had joined at 09:45 a.m., whereas the respondent had joined later at 10:00 a.m. It was held that in conditions the place candidates be a part of service on the identical day, seniority should be decided on the premise of age. Due to this fact, the petitioner being older by 4 years, 10 months, and three days, is to be handled as senior. The judgment of D.P. Das vs. Union of India, was relied upon whereby it was held that for dedication of seniority of the incumbents, who have been beneficial on the identical date, age is the one legitimate and truthful foundation and due to this fact, their seniority must be selected the premise of the age of the candidates.
It was additional noticed by the court docket that the seniority checklist ready by the earlier Headmaster and Block Elementary Schooling Officer, which positioned respondent above the petitioner, ignored each the date of beginning and the precise time of becoming a member of. Therefore, the seniority checklist was not sustainable within the eyes of legislation and was liable to be quashed. The Notification dated 2nd of March 2010, was relied upon by the court docket which ruled the procedures for promotion to the publish of Head Grasp. Clause 3 offers that choice to the publish of Head Masters in such Center Faculties shall be made strictly on the premise of seniority-cum-efficiency. It was held by the court docket that the appointment of respondent as In-Cost Headmaster was in violation of the precept of seniority-cum-efficiency as laid down within the Authorities Notification dated 02.03.2010. The judgment in Ashok Kumar Roy vs. State of Assam was additionally relied upon the place it was held that the prime consideration for selecting an incumbent to be in-charge Headmaster/ Headmistress of a college is the college seniority.
It was additional held by the court docket that the switch order dated 11.11.2024, transferring the petitioner to a different faculty throughout the pendency of the writ petition, was mala fide. The case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India, was relied upon by the court docket whereby the Supreme Courtroom had held {that a} switch order when handed and with out giving a chance of being heard to the involved officer is malice in legislation. And when an order of switch is handed in lieu of punishment, the identical is liable to be put aside being wholly unlawful.
Due to this fact, the order dated 22.10.2024 appointing respondent as In-Cost Headmaster was put aside. Additional the seniority checklist was quashed by the court docket and it was directed to the respondents to permit the petitioner to behave as In-Cost Headmaster with all monetary powers. Additional the switch order dated 11.11.2024 was additionally quashed by the court docket.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Identify: Nozrul Islam vs. The State of Assam and Ors.
Case No.: WP(C)/5620/2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: N Sarma, G U Ahmed, R Islam
Counsel for the Respondents: P N Sarma, J Abedin & S C Biswas
