Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 78 (GAU)

Rinti Hazarika v. State of Assam

2017-01-18

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Assailing the order dated 28.03.2015 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) by means of which the respondent No. 4 has been allowed to hold the charge of Principal in the Batadrava Sri Sri Sankardev Higher Secondary School, Nagaon, the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on 18.10.1987 and thereafter her services were regularized with effect from 24.08.1988 pursuant to a selection process. However, the respondent No. 4 was initially appointed on 18.06.1988 against a lien vacancy and his services have not been regularized till date. In view of the above, it is the petitioner who is senior in service and therefore, ought to have been appointed as in-charge Principal of the school in question instead of the respondent No. 4 who is junior to her. 2. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit, inter-alia, stating that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 13.06.1988 on regular basis pursuant to his selection made by the District Level Selection Board whereas the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on regular basis with effect from 24.08.1988 pursuant to her selection by the District Level Selection Board. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 is senior to the petitioner and accordingly, has been made the In-charge Principal. 3. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is nothing on record to show that pursuant to the initial appointment of the respondent No. 4 against a lien leave vacancy his services have been regularized. Such being the position, according to Mr. Gogoi, the respondent No. 4 is still holding a temporary post which was available against a lien leave vacancy and therefore, the said respondent could not have been held to be senior in service over the writ petitioner. The said argument of Mr. Gogoi does not merit acceptance by this Court for the following reasons. Firstly, the Joint Director of the Secondary Education Department has categorically stated in his affidavit that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 was with effect from 13.06.1988 on regular basis pursuant to a selection process and there is nothing on record to dispute the said stand taken by the department. Firstly, the Joint Director of the Secondary Education Department has categorically stated in his affidavit that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 was with effect from 13.06.1988 on regular basis pursuant to a selection process and there is nothing on record to dispute the said stand taken by the department. Secondly, even if it is held that the respondent No. 4 was appointed against a lien leave vacancy in the year 1988, it would be completely imaginary to suppose that he has continued since then against a lien leave vacancy post on a temporary basis since there cannot be any lien leave vacancy existing for nearly 28 years under the Rules. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent No. 4 is holding a regular post with effect from 13.06.1988 and is senior in service than the writ petitioner reckoned from the date of their regular appointment. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 4. At this stage, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, submits that the process for regular selection and appointment of Principal in the said school has already been completed and the matter is now lying before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for necessary approval. In view of the above, no further order is deemed necessary in this case. 5. The writ petition is accordingly closed without causing any interference with the impugned order dated 28.03.2015.