Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 65 (GAU)

Shurzat Ali Ahmed v. State of Assam

2017-01-11

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Govt. of Assam. 2. Having regard to the grievance expressed by the petitioner and the order that is proposed to be passed, issuance of formal notice is considered not necessary and the case is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of selection of respondent No. 5 as Principal of Langla Higher Secondary School in the district of Barpeta. 4. As would be evident from the above, matter relates to selection and appointment of Principal in the Langla Higher Secondary School (School) on regular basis. 5. While petitioner is serving as Post Graduate Teacher of English in the said School, respondent No. 5 is serving as Graduate Teacher of the said School. Presently, the post of Principal of the School is lying vacant and one Mozibur Rahman is now discharging duties as In-charge Principal of the School. 6. It is stated that process for filling up the post of Principal of Higher Secondary Schools in the State was initiated by the Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Assam by issuance of Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2014 laying down guidelines as to how the selection is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions contained in Rules 12 & 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 (2003 Rules). In respect of the School, advertisement was issued on 22.06.2016. Interview was held on 10.12.2016. It is further stated that respondent No. 5 does not have the eligibility qualification for appointment of Principal in Higher Secondary School as he does not have teaching experience of 17 years and also does not possess the BEd. degree. Yet petitioner has come to learn that respondent No.5 has been selected where after the selection record has been forwarded to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. 7. It is with this grievance that the present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 8. Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition is pre-mature as no decision regarding final selection and appointment of Principal has been taken by the appropriate authority. 7. It is with this grievance that the present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 8. Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition is pre-mature as no decision regarding final selection and appointment of Principal has been taken by the appropriate authority. He submits that as per Government Office Memorandum (OM) dated 06.06.2014 and consequential order of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam dated 23.06.2016 the selection record is required to be placed before the State Selection Board for approval. Once State Selection Board approves, the same is to be forwarded to the Government, which may after causing such verification as may be considered necessary, accord approval for appointment. The select list shall remain valid for one year from the date of its approval by the Government. Therefore, grievance of the petitioner is pre-mature. 9. There is merit in the submission made by learned Standing Counsel. 10. From the narration of facts as above, it is evident that the selection record is yet to be scrutinized by the State Selection Board, not to speak of further verification by the Government. State Selection Board is a high level body constituted by the State Government under Rule 16 of the 2003 Rules for recommendation of candidates for the cadre of Principal of Higher Secondary/Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools and comprises of the following members:- (i) Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department or his nominee not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Department - Chairman; (ii) Director of Secondary Education, Assam - Member Secretary; (iii) One reputed educationist, either an officer of the Assam Education Service or a Principal of Higher Secondary School, to be nominated by the Government - Member. 11. State Selection Board is expected to consider all relevant aspects as per requirement of Rules 12 and 13 of the 2003 Rules as well as the Government OM dated 06.06.2014 and the Director's order dated 23.06.2016, as extracted above before making the recommendation to the Government. After the Government accords approval for appointment under Rule 13(4) of the 2003 Rules, the appointing authority shall make the appointment. As per Rule 2(b)(i) of the 2003 Rules, Director of Secondary Education, Assam is the appointing authority in respect of cadre of Principal. 12. After the Government accords approval for appointment under Rule 13(4) of the 2003 Rules, the appointing authority shall make the appointment. As per Rule 2(b)(i) of the 2003 Rules, Director of Secondary Education, Assam is the appointing authority in respect of cadre of Principal. 12. Having gone through the scheme of selection provided under the 2003 Rules, it is quite apparent that matter relating to selection for appointment to the post of Principal of the School on regular basis has not yet attained finality. The matter is yet to be scrutinized by the State Selection Board, not to speak of making recommendation to the Government for according approval during which process the Government may cause further verification if considered necessary where after appointment is to be made by the appointing authority, i.e., by the Director. Therefore, the stage for final decision to be taken has not yet been reached. Intervention by the Court at this stage would amount to preempting a decision or decisions by the designated authorities. Recommendation of the Selection Committee per se would not give rise to a cause of action for initiating a legal proceeding because no finality is attached to such a recommendation at a stage prior to according approval by the Government. Viewed in that context, the writ petition appears to be pre-mature. 13. In such circumstances and having regard to the stage at which the challenge has been made, Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, save and except to observe that State Selection Board and the Government shall make due scrutiny and verification in accordance with law before finalizing the selection. 14. Subject to the observation made above, writ petition is disposed of.