Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 761 (GAU)

Tankeswar Nath v. State of Assam

2017-06-09

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : None appears for the petitioner. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel appearing for the Secondary Education Department. 2. When the matter was called upon on 02.06.2017, none had appeared for the petitioner on the said date also. By the order dated 02.06.2017, it was provided that if in the event, none appears for the petitioner, on the next date fixed, the Court would be constrained to proceed in the matter in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it is proposed that this matter be taken up for final consideration in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Teacher on 30.12.1995 and since then, he had been continuously working in the said school. It is stated that the respondent No.5 was also appointed as an Asstt. Teacher in the same schoolin the year 1993. Although the respondent No.5 was appointed in the year 1993, he was appointed in an intermediate post drawing salary in the intermediate scale and later on 24.08.2001, the respondent No.5 was given the graduate sale of pay and as such, considered to be a Graduate Teacher. It is stated that an advertisement was issued on 02.11.2010 under the signature of Director of Secondary Education-cum-Member Secretary, State Selection Board, Assam inviting applications from eligible candidates from filling up posts of Principal, Vice Principal, and Headmaster amongst others. The petitioner along with two other from the concerned school appeared in the interview for the post of Headmaster. 5. It is also case of the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the only eligible candidate for appointment as Headmaster having completed 10 years of service as Graduate Teacher and secondly, he is the senior most Graduate Teacher in the school. Situated thus, the petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 29.06.2012 by which, the respondent No.5 was made the In-Charge Headmaster of the school. While issuing notice, by an interim order dated 26.09.2012, it was directed that the respondent No.5 be allowed to continue as the In-Charge Headmaster of the school pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2012, but however, he was not substantially appointed as Headmaster. 6. Mr. While issuing notice, by an interim order dated 26.09.2012, it was directed that the respondent No.5 be allowed to continue as the In-Charge Headmaster of the school pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2012, but however, he was not substantially appointed as Headmaster. 6. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Education Department by referring to an instruction provided by the Deputy Inspector of Secondary Education, Assam by letter dated 12.11.2012 submits that although the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had appeared in the said selection as per the advertisement dated 02.11.2010, but the selection board had not recommended either of them for regular Headmaster. The instruction also provides that the respondent No.5 had received his graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 30.12.93 as per the Govt. circular dated 30.12.93 and on the other hand, the writ petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Teacher on 30.12.95. 7. Accordingly, the learned standing counsel submits that the respondent No.5 is senior to the petitioner and as such, he was allowed to be the In-Charge Headmaster of the school. It is also stated that the stand taken by the petitioner in the petition that the respondent No.5 was promoted as Graduate Teacher on 24.08.2001 is incorrect and false. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this petition inasmuch as the only case of the petitioner was that he was appointed on 30.12.95 as a Graduate Teacher, whereas, the respondent No.5 was promoted as Graduate Teacher on 24.08.2001 and the said assertion of the petitioner has been found to be incorrect as per the statement of the respondent authorities on the basis of the records. 9. In view of the above, this petition stands dismissed. Copy of the letter dated 12.11.2012 along with the parawise comment be kept on record. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.