Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 95 (GAU)

PRADIP KUMAR SARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-01-20

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. P. Bothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 as well as Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6. 2. The writ petitioner and the respondent No.6 were both serving as Assistant Teachers in the Barkhopa M.E. School, in the district of Baksa when the District Elementary Education Officer, Baksa had issued an order dated 25.04.2016 allowing the writ petitioner to function as the In-charge Headmaster of the school pursuant to the retirement of the earlier incumbent in the office of Headmaster. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 had issued an order dated 02.05.2016 holding that the respondent No.6 was senior to the writ petitioner and accordingly directed the District Elementary Education Officer, Baksa to take consequential steps in the matter. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2016 the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition wherein this Court had passed an interim order dated 20.05.2016 directing the District Elementary Education Officer, Baksa to function as the In-charge Headmaster of the school in addition to his normal duties till the matter was resolved. Thereafter, by order dated 16.11.2016 passed in this case the earlier interim order dated 20.05.2016 was modified and the writ petitioner was permitted to function as the in-charge Headmaster of the school. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, that in terms of the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by this Court, the writ petitioner is presently holding the charge of Headmaster of the school. 4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is evident that the core controversy involved in this proceeding is pertaining to the claim of seniority of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent No.6. Having regard to the basis of their respective claims as projected in this proceeding, I am of the view that the proper course of action would be to direct the respondent No.3 to make a determination as regards the competing claim of seniority made by the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 on the basis of the materials furnished by them. 5. 5. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to determine the issue of seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 after giving them proper opportunity of being heard in the matter. The aforesaid determination will be completed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such time the exercise, as directed above is completed, the writ petitioner will be allowed to function as the in-charge Headmaster, which, however, would be subject to the order to be passed by the respondent No.3 determining the inter se - seniority between both the candidates. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.