Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1258 (GAU)

Alal Uddin Ahmed v. State of Assam

2017-09-07

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Department of Elementary Education. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of the Demawguri ME Madrassa School, in Morigaon District and at the relevant time, he was serving as the i/c. Headmaster of the school. He challenges the select list dated 22.6.2011 (p. 86), whereby, 10 teachers to be promoted as Headmasters, have been shortlisted. One Ismail Hussain, who was serving as the Assistant Teacher of the Phalihamari ME Madrassa School, has since been appointed as the regular Headmaster in the petitioner's Demawguri ME Madrassa School, under the promotion order dated 13.12.2011, issued by the Director of Elementary Education (DEE), Assam. 3.1 The learned counsel Mr. B. Rahman submits that the petitioner entered service at the venture stage of the Demawguri ME Madrassa School on 12.4.1980 and his service was provincialised w.e.f. 1.9.1986. Accordingly, the serving teacher claims fixation of his seniority amongst the Assistant Teachers, from the date when he entered service at the venture stage and not from the subsequent date of provincialisation. 3.2 The petitioner makes comparison with one Habibur Rahman from the Kacharibori ME Madrassa School at Sl. No. 4 of the select list (Annexure-I), to contend that he was regularly appointed on 23.6.1982, whereas the Baralimari ME Madrassa School was provincialised w.e.f. 1.2.1988 and amongst the six provincialised staff of the School, the name of Md. Habibur Rahman is shown, as per the order passed by the DEEO, Nagaon on 25.4.1988 (Annexure-O). Therefore, it is argued that reckoning of seniority for Habibur Rahman, w.e.f. 20.6.1982 is incorrect and his seniority be reckoning from 1.2.1988, as per the provincialisation of the Baralimari ME Madrassa School. 4.1 On the other hand, Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel submits that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the selected Headmasters despite his challenge to the select list dated 22.6.2011 (p. 86). In fact, the posting of Ismail Hussain, as the regular Headmaster in the petitioner's own school, i.e., Demawguri ME Madrassa School is also left unchallenged, by the then i/c. Headmaster. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel submits that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the selected Headmasters despite his challenge to the select list dated 22.6.2011 (p. 86). In fact, the posting of Ismail Hussain, as the regular Headmaster in the petitioner's own school, i.e., Demawguri ME Madrassa School is also left unchallenged, by the then i/c. Headmaster. 4.2 Insofar as the comparison with Habibur Rahman, the departmental lawyer submits that the Habibur Rahman from the Phalihamari ME Madrassa School, was selected for promotion, whereas the petitioner refers to another Habibur Rahman from the Baralimari ME Madrassa School, whose service was provincialised w.e.f. 1.2.1988. Therefore, the respondents' lawyer submits that the petitioner's challenge to the select list, cannot be entertained on such uncertain assertion. 5. The Rules have not been framed for selection and appointment of Headmasters of the ME/MEM/MV & Senior Basic Schools but under the Government notification of 2.3.2010, the Procedure for promotion to the post of Headmaster of ME/MEM/MV & Senior Basic Schools, are prescribed. Under the applicable norms, the Headmasters are to be selected on the criterion of seniority-cum-efficiency but the select list remains valid only for one year. The service of the petitioner as can be noted, was regularized w.e.f. 1.9.1986, whereas the impugned select list dated 22.6.2011 (Annexure-I) reflects that all 10 enlisted teachers are senior to the petitioner, as per their respective date of regularization. 6. Had there been any bona fide grievance on the selection of any individual Headmaster, the petitioner should have arrayed that person as a respondent in the case but failed to implead either Ismail Hussain, who was posted as the regular Headmaster in the petitioner's own school on 13.12.2011, nor he impleaded the Assistant Teacher Habibur Rahman of Kacharibori ME Madrassa School, with whom some comparison is made, during the course of hearing. 7. The selected Headmaster Ismail Hussain was regularized as far back as on 1.7.1977 and this may be the reason for the reluctance to challenge the promotion of the senior teacher. Moreover, the Habibur Rahman of Kacharibori ME Madrassa School, whose name appears at SI. No. 4 of the select list, may not be the Habibur Rahman of the other school i.e. Baralimari ME Madrassa School, whose service was provincialised w.e.f. 1.2.1988. Moreover, the Habibur Rahman of Kacharibori ME Madrassa School, whose name appears at SI. No. 4 of the select list, may not be the Habibur Rahman of the other school i.e. Baralimari ME Madrassa School, whose service was provincialised w.e.f. 1.2.1988. As can be seen, the Habibur Rahman selected for promotion, was regularized in service on 23.6.1982, well before the petitioner's service was regularized on 1.9.1986. Therefore, the selection of the senior teacher on the criteria of seniority-cum-efficiency, under the applicable procedure, cannot be faulted. 8. In my considered opinion, the seniority of the teacher should be reckoned from the date of provincialisation and the service at the venture stage should not determine the inter-se seniority. Each of the 10 selected persons in the impugned select list, are senior to the petitioner and, therefore, on the criteria of seniority-cum-efficiency, their selection can't be faulted, in the absence of anything to suggest that the selected person was inefficient or ineligible. 9. In the above circumstances, the select list prepared on 22.6.2011, need not be disturbed for the reasons stated above and also because, the list remains valid only for one year, under clause 7 of the Promotion Procedure. The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. With the above order, the case stands disposed of. No cost.