JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P. Das, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for therespondent No. 4. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner, namely, Sri Madhab Chandra Kalitahasprayed for setting aside the order, dated 16.07.2024, (Annexure - 5), issued by the Director of Secondary Education Department, by which he was debarred from holding the charge of Headmaster (In-Charge) of GotanagarNambari High School, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to allow him to hold the charge of Headmaster (In-Charge) of the said school. Background fact:- 3. The background fact leading to filing of this present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner has been serving as Graduate Assistant Teacher in Gotanagar Nambari High School, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, since 1990 and he was granted the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 19.11.1991. He possessed the requisite qualifications/experiences for being appointed as regular/in-charge Headmaster of the saidschool as per the provision of the Rule 14 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules , 2018. As per the Rule 14 of the said Rules, for recruitment to the post of Headmaster of a High School, a candidate must possesses the requisite qualifications such as Bachelor Degree from UGC recognized University, B.Ed. from NCTE recognized Institution affiliated to UGC recognized University and teaching experience as Graduate Teacher for a period of 10 years and the petitioner possessed all the above qualifications and experiences for being appointed or to hold the charge of the Headmaster of the school in which he has been serving and the petitioner had acquired the above degrees while he was serving. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he, after the enactment of the Right to Education Act, followed by issuance of guidelines by the NCTE, with regard to minimum qualifications of teachers of schools, the Government of Assam had amended the earlier Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rule, 2003 in the year 2012 and had incorporated the requirement of B.Ed. degree as minimum qualification for the teachers of high schools and because of the said requirement for filling up the posts of Graduate Teachers and Principal of Secondary Schools or Senior Secondary Schools, the Government inexercise of vested power, vide Notifications dated 13.09.2012 and 07.07.2014, had relaxed the requirement of B.Ed. degree for a period of five years and filled up the posts of Principal and Graduate Teachers with a condition that the incumbent concerned would acquire the B.Ed. degree from any NCTE recognized Institute and UGC recognized University. Thereafter, vide Office Memorandum No.ASE.383/2011/pt./77, dated 28.07.2014, the respondent No. 1 had superseded all earlier orders/notifications and it had been decided to allow the teachers of High Schools for acquiring B.Ed. degree. The Respondent No.1 had also allowed the teachers to acquire B.Ed. degree on distance mode of education from Private Institution or University duly recognized by UGC and approved by NCTE and also allowed the teachers to take the evening shift classes where normal classes of the school are not hampered and for that no prior permission shall be required. Thereafter, the petitioner hadavailed the deputation for acquiring his B.Ed. degree, but could not complete the course within the stipulated time and as per the above O.M. dated 28.07.2014, as because a teacher can avail deputation to undergo B.Ed. training only one time in his service career, as such, he had enrolled for B.Ed. degree in the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and thereafter, he had completed his B.Ed. degree in the year 2016. Further pleaded case of the petitioner is that after the enforcement of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules , 2018, the respondent No.1 had issued another Office Memorandum dated 22.11.2019, whereby it has been decided to include the degrees obtained through ODL mode from IGNOU, KKHSOU, IDOL etc. as valid and acceptable for the direct recruitment and as well as for promotion. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.09.2020, published on 12.09.2020, an addendum dated 29.09.2020, had been issued whereby the DSE, Assam had incorporated the degrees obtained under ODL mode conferred by IGNOU, KKHSOU, IDOL and Dibrugarh University Distance Education as valid degrees. as valid and acceptable for the direct recruitment and as well as for promotion. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.09.2020, published on 12.09.2020, an addendum dated 29.09.2020, had been issued whereby the DSE, Assam had incorporated the degrees obtained under ODL mode conferred by IGNOU, KKHSOU, IDOL and Dibrugarh University Distance Education as valid degrees. Further pleaded case of the petitioner is that the existing regular Headmaster of the School will be retiring from service on 31.07.2024, and though the petitioner is senior and qualified, yet, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam had allowed the respondent No. 4 to hold the charge, vide impugned order, dated 16.07.2024, illegally, unlawfully and arbitrarily, depriving the petitioner by holding that the petitioner had not obtained any prior permission from the appointing authority to acquire B.Ed. degree.” 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition for granting the relief, as aforesaid. 5. The respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam has filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the replacement of an ad hoc appointee by another ad-hoc appointee is not permissible and the appointment of the respondent No. 4, Smt. NirmaliChoudhury to hold the charge of Headmistress in GotanagarNambari High School, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati is only an adhoc arrangement. Further stand of the respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner, Sri Madhab Chandra Kalitahad acquired the B.Ed. degree in the year 2016, while in service, without obtaining prior permission from the appointing authority and as such, the B.Ed. degree so acquired by him,though is a valid degree, yet it is misconduct on his part for being pursued the course without obtaining prior permission from the appointing authority, in view of the Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct)Rules, 1965. Whereas,the respondent No. 4 had acquired the B.Ed. degree in the year 2011, on deputation, andshe has been temporally allowed to act as the Headmaster/In-Charge of the said school, vide the Directorate order No.440642/109, dated 16.07.2024. 6. The respondent No. 4, Smti. Nirmali Choudhury has also filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein she has taken similar stand like the respondent No.2. Whereas,the respondent No. 4 had acquired the B.Ed. degree in the year 2011, on deputation, andshe has been temporally allowed to act as the Headmaster/In-Charge of the said school, vide the Directorate order No.440642/109, dated 16.07.2024. 6. The respondent No. 4, Smti. Nirmali Choudhury has also filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein she has taken similar stand like the respondent No.2. It is also stated that it is a settled proposition of law that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, that thing has to be done in that manner and that manner only and as the petitioner had obtained the B.Ed. degree without following the proper procedure and obtaining permission from the respondent authorities and though the same may be valid degree, yet, the process of acquiring the same amounts to misconduct, as he had notobtained any permission from the respondent authorities. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. Submissions:- 7. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had acquired the whole degree for being appointed as the In-Charge Headmaster/Headmaster of the concerned school and in spite of that, citing the Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965, vide order dated 16.07.2024, had appointed Smt. Nirmali Choudhury (respondent No. 4) to act as the In-Charge Headmaster of Gotanagar Nambari High School, until further order, along with financial power to draw and disburse the salary of the staffs of the school in addition to her normal duties as Assistant Teacher, as per provision of F.R. 49(c) in place of Sri Achyut Ch.Sarma, Headmaster, retiring on 31.07.2024. 7.1. Mr. Purkayastha referring to Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965 submits that the said Rule stands relaxed by the respondent authority by issuing an Office Memorandum No. ASE.383/2011/pt./77, dated 28.07.2014, the respondent No. 1 had superseded all earlier orders/notifications and it had been decided to allow the teachers of High Schools for acquiring B.Ed. degree, and that the petitioner, with intimation to the Head of the Institution and Inspector of Schools, had pursued the course. 7.2. Mr. Purkayastha referring to a decision of this Court in the case of Tankeswar Nath v. State of Assam & ors. degree, and that the petitioner, with intimation to the Head of the Institution and Inspector of Schools, had pursued the course. 7.2. Mr. Purkayastha referring to a decision of this Court in the case of Tankeswar Nath v. State of Assam & ors. [vide order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.(C) No. 5419/2023]submits that having been so acquired from a recognized University; the said Degree is otherwise valid and acceptable in law and accordingly, allowed the petitioners to hold the charge of the post of Principal, Sarthebari Higher Secondary School, Sarthebari. 7.3. Referring to another decision of this Court in Ranjit Kumar Baruah vs. State of Assam and 3 Others , in W.P.(C) No. 1925/2024, Mr. Purkayastha submits that in a similar circumstanced case, this Court, vide order dated 21.01.2025, has granted relief to the petitioner, who is otherwise eligible for holding the post of Principal of Kuralguri Higher Secondary School, Golaghat as serious prejudice will be caused to the service interest of the petitioner and accordingly, the matter was remanded back for passing the appropriate order allowing the petitioner of the said case to hold the charge of Principal of the said school. 7.4. Under the aforesaid factual as well as legal position, Mr. Purkayastha submits that in the present case also, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to pass necessary order for allowing the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster of Gotanagar Nambari High School. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2&3 submits that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the charge of In-Charge Head Master of Gotanagar Nambari High School,in view of the Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965. Ms. Das, further submits that the petitioner had obtained the B.Ed. degree without formal permission of the authority and therefore, he cannot be allowed to hold the charge of the post of In- Charge Headmaster of Gotanagar Nambari High School on account of his misconduct. Therefore, Ms. Das has contended to dismiss this petition. 9. Whereas, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4,subscribes the submission of Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and reiterated the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition. Therefore, Ms. Das has contended to dismiss this petition. 9. Whereas, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4,subscribes the submission of Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and reiterated the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition. However, referring to a decision of Allahabad High Court in Anurag Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department L. Ko and Others , in Service Single No. 33425/2019 , Mr. Sarma submits that the Office Memorandum, upon which the petitioner has relied upon, cannot override the Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965 and that the said Office Memorandum was issued keeping in mind of the new Right to Education Act, wherein acquiring of B.Ed. degree by the teachers, is made compulsory and relaxed the procedure of obtaining prior permission from the respondent authorities, but, the said Office Memorandum cannot override the Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in case of conflict the Rule made under Article 309 shall prevail. Mr. Sarma, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. Discussion:- 10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the affidavit-in- oppositions filed by the respondents and also the decisions referred by the learned counsel for both the parties. 11. Before a discussion is directed in to the issues raised in this petition, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965 which reads as under:- "13. Prosecution of studies by Government servants in educational institutions. - No Government servant while in Government service shall join or attend any educational institution for the purpose of preparing himself for or shall appear at any examination of a recognized-Board or University without obtaining previous permission from the appointing authority: Provided that the appointing authority may refuse such permission in the interest of the public service on consideration that such joining or attending any educational institution or appearing at any examination may create dislocation of work or stand in the way of the efficient discharge of his duties by the Government servant concerned. Permission of study leave or any other kind of leave granted for the purpose of joining or attending any educational institution shall be subject to the condition that the Government servant shall not seek election to or hold any electist office in Students’ Union or other Association of Student’s except Association formed for purely literary, academic or athletic pursuits." 12. This Rule was discussed elaborately by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Tankeswar Nath (supra) wherein it has been held as under: "5. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 mandates that no government employee while in service, shall join or shall attend any educational institution for preparing himself or shall appear at an examination of a recognized Board or University without obtaining previous permission from the appointing authority. The provisions of Rule 13 only mandates that prior permission shall be obtained by a government employee for prosecuting any course of study. The violation of Section 13 would amount to a misconduct for which the employer may draw a disciplinary proceeding against the government employee. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 cannot be invoked to invalidate any degree acquired by a government employee, the course of study for which the government employee had prosecuted without previous permission from the authorities. 6. The said issue is no longer res-integra and this Court, vide order, dated 28.09.2023, passed in IA(c)2615/2023 [Smt. Mouchumi Saharia v. Smriti Rekha Kalita& 3 ors.) had held that if a Degree had been obtained without prior permission of the appointing authority, the same would be a misconduct under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 and it being a misconduct, the relevant proceedings of law applicable against the candidate, would be a proceeding against such candidate under the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, but the same by itself cannot invalidate the otherwise valid degree obtained from the respective Universities and further, that the Degree obtained from a University is governed by Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 7. 7. On application of the decision of this Court in the case of Mouchumi Saharia (supra); to the issues arising in the present case, it is clear that the petitioner having been validly granted a Masters Degree in Assamese and the said Degree having been obtained from an institution recognized by the University Grants Commission, the respondent authorities do not have the jurisdiction and authority to invalidate the said Degree obtained by the petitioner and such invalidation cannot be done even impliedly. The effect of the denial of the benefits of holding the charge of in-charge Principal of the said school to the petitioner inspite of being the senior most Teacher of the school, amounts to an invalidation of the Degree obtained by the petitioner in Krishna Kanta Handique State Open University, which is impermissible. 8. Accordingly, the order, dated 30.03.2023, having been issued only on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to hold the charge of the post of Principal, Sarthebari Higher Secondary School, Sarthebari, on account of he having obtained his M.A. Degree without prior permission from the competent authorities for undergoing such a course; stands interfered with. 9. The M.A. Degree acquired by the petitioner having been so acquired from a recognized University; the said Degree is otherwise valid and acceptable in law and accordingly, the petitioner having fulfilled the eligibility criteria as mandated for recruitment to the post of principal of the school in question, under the provisions of Rule 12(3) of the said Rules of 2018; a legal right has accrued to the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal, Sarthebari Higher Secondary School, Sarthebari." 13. Again in the case of Ranjit Kumar Baruah (supra) a co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that – “ 16. At this stage, this Court would like to note that the denial to the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal of Kuralguri Higher Secondary School, Golaghat, being on the ground that he had pursued his MA Degree without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, however, it cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is a teacher and he is, therefore, required to update his knowledge so as to benefit the students who are being taught by him in the said school. 17. The good teacher is a perennial student. 17. The good teacher is a perennial student. Quest for learning never ends in a good student. Continuous pursuit of knowledge by teachers deepens understanding and widens horizons. Intellectual capital created by continuous learning even after securing employment, becomes an asset for the institution. The further learning of the teachers in fact endures to the benefit of the students. The teachers can impart what they know and have learnt. The quality of teaching is proportional to the depth of learning of the teachers. The environment or ecology of the institution and the system has to encourage and support teachers who are engaged in higher learning. But there is a caveat. The right of the teachers to pursue courses of higher learning or acquiring additional academic qualifications is circumscribed by the current demands of the institution and the extant requirements of the students. 18. The pursuit of higher learning or the endeavours to acquire additional qualifications by the teachers cannot interfere with their primary duty of teaching. The interests of the students are paramount and cannot be compromised. In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the course being pursued by the teacher and the demands of the academic schedule of the students or the needs of the institution, the authorities shall take a decision in the matter. They are best placed to take such decision. The decision shall be taken by according primacy to the academic needs of the students and the institution. However, when there is no such conflict no restriction can be placed on the acquisition of additional qualifications by a teacher and no disqualification will accrue to such teacher. 19. In the case on hand, though the respondent authorities had proceeded to deny to the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal of Kuralguri Higher Secondary School, Golaghat, but, they have not brought on record any material to demonstrate that pursuing of MA Degree by the petitioner, herein, through Distance Education Mode from Dibrugarh University, had in any manner, compromised his duties as a teacher of the said school during the period he had so pursued the said MA course. The petitioner having pursued the said MA course in the Distance Education Mode from a recognized institution, the same cannot be said to have hampered the duties required to be discharged by him as a teacher of the school, in question. 20. The petitioner having pursued the said MA course in the Distance Education Mode from a recognized institution, the same cannot be said to have hampered the duties required to be discharged by him as a teacher of the school, in question. 20. In view of the above conclusions; this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is eligible for holding the charge of the post of Principal of Kuralguri Higher Secondary School, Golaghat, and a junior teacher, in the meantime, having been so permitted to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the said school; prejudice has been caused to the service interest of the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 12.02.2024, issued by the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, stands interfered with. 14. That a perusal of the Office Memorandum No. ASE.383/2011/pt./77, dated 28.07.2014, indicates that the rigors of Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965 stands diluted considerably. As per Clause 6 of the Memorandum, no provision is required. The said Office Memorandum was issued keeping in mind of the new Right to Education Act, wherein acquiring of B.Ed. degree by the teachers, is made compulsory. The Memorandum read as under:- “ GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. No.ASE.383/2011/pt/77 dated Dispur the 28th July 2014 “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:-Deputation of Teachers of Higher Secondary School and High School/High Madrassa to undergo B.Ed. Training and procedure thereof. The Government have relaxed required educational and professional qualification of B.Ed./IT degree for the post of teachers in provincialised Higher Secondary School and High School/High Madrassa during the period up to 1" January, 2015 vide Notification No ASE 324/2009/138 Dated 13.09.2012 on certain condition that they will acquire the BT/ B.Ed. degree from recognized University within 5 years from the date of joining In service in exercise of powers under proviso to Schedule-II of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2012. Similarly, in exercise of powers under rule 29 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 and taking into consideration the circumstances under which some of the teachers could not obtain the B.Ed. degree, the required educational and professional qualification of BT/B.Ed. Similarly, in exercise of powers under rule 29 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 and taking into consideration the circumstances under which some of the teachers could not obtain the B.Ed. degree, the required educational and professional qualification of BT/B.Ed. degree for the post of Principal of provincialised Higher Secondary School has been relaxed for the period up to 1st January, 2015 vide Notification No ASE.82/2014/Pt/43 Dated 07.07.2014 on certain condition that the persons appointed with such relaxation will have to acquire the BT/B.Ed. degree from recognized University within 3 years from the date of joining in the post of Principal on promotion. As such, all the above teachers are now required to obtain BT/B.Ed. degree before completion of the stipulated period. Therefore, in supersession of all earlier orders issued in regards of deputation of teachers for B.Ed. training course, it has been decided to depute/allow the teachers of Higher Secondary School and High School/High Madrassa for acquiring BT/B.Ed. degree as follows: 1. The Teachers appointed in the post of Principal without BT/B.Ed degree if any, shall be deputed to undergo B.Ed. training in order of seniority within next 2 years from their date of joining on promotion. 2. The Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teachers of both Government and provincialised Higher Secondary and High School/High Madrassa who have completed at least 5 years of continuous regular service shall be deputed to undergo B.Ed. degree in Government B.Ed. College in the State in order of seniority. 3. The deputation to undergo B.Ed. training shall be given only one time in the career. In case the teachers fail to pass the B.Ed examination in one attempt, he will not be considered for deputation for another term. 4. The terms and conditions for deputation such as payment of salary during the period of deputation, grant of special leave for entire period of deputation etc., will be as per State Government rules in respect of the teachers deputed as per Para 1 and 2 above. 5. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam will. identify all such candidates and prepare cadre-wise list and furnish the same to the Government within 15 days. Other teachers shall be deputed to undergo B.Ed. training after the said list is fully exhausted. 6. 5. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam will. identify all such candidates and prepare cadre-wise list and furnish the same to the Government within 15 days. Other teachers shall be deputed to undergo B.Ed. training after the said list is fully exhausted. 6. The persons appointed in the post of the Post Graduate Teacher, Graduate Teachers in provincialised Higher Secondary and High School/High Madrassa with relaxation of professional qualification of B.Ed. degree as per Government Notification No ASE.324/2009/138 Dated 13.09.2012, may pursue B.Ed. degree from the B.Ed. Colleges In the State which have affiliation by the Gauhati University, Dibrugarh University and Assam University in the evening shift Classes where normal classes of the Schools are not hampered. No prior permission shall be required. The teachers who desires to obtain B.Ed. degree from such Colleges may get admission with intimation to respective Head of the Institution and the Inspector of Schools concerned. The competent authority shall grant leave to enable the teacher to appear Examination, Practical Classes etc. 7. The teachers of any cadre in Higher Secondary and High School/High Madrassa may also pursue B.Ed. degree on distance mode of Education from the Private Institution/University duly recognized by UGC and approved by NCTE. Sd/-S.C. Das, IAS Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam Secondary Education Department Memo No ASE383/2011/P/77-A Dated Dispur the 28th July, 2014 15. Further, it is to be mentioned here that Article 51A of the Constitution of India provides for Fundamental Duties and Clause (j) provides that every citizen of this country shall strive towards excellence in all spheres to higher level of achievement. The Clause read as under:- 51-A:-It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-- (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. 15.1. Now it is judicially recognized that that fundamental duties are equally important as fundamental rights. Though fundamental duties are not enforceable like fundamental rights they cannot be overlooked as duties in Part IV A of the Constitution of India . In the case of AIIMS Students Union vs. AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428 ) Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of fundamental duties held as under:- “ 58. Though fundamental duties are not enforceable like fundamental rights they cannot be overlooked as duties in Part IV A of the Constitution of India . In the case of AIIMS Students Union vs. AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428 ) Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of fundamental duties held as under:- “ 58. The preamble to the Constitution of India secures, as one of its objects, fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation to “we the people of India”. ……………………………… ……………………………… Rabindra Nath Tagore’s vision of a free India cannot be complete unless “knowledge is free” and “tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection”. Almost a quarter century after the people of India have given the Constitution unto themselves, a chapter on fundamental duties came to be incorporated in the Constitution. Fundamental duties, as defined in Article 51-A, are not made enforceable by a writ of court just as the fundamental rights are, but it cannot be lost sight of that “duties” in Part IV -A Article 51- A are prefixed by the same word “fundamental” which was prefixed by the founding fathers of the Constitution to “rights” in Part III. Every citizen of India is fundamentally obligated to develop a scientific temper and humanism. He is fundamentally duty-bound to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievements. State is, all the citizens placed together and hence though Article 51-A does not expressly cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that the duty of every citizen of India is the collective duty of the State. …………………………… …………………………… Fundamental duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or choice, people’s wish as manifested through Article 51- A, can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts. Constitutional enactment of fundamental duties, if it has to have any meaning, must be used by courts as a tool to tab, even a taboo, on State action drifting away from constitutional values. 15.2. Constitutional enactment of fundamental duties, if it has to have any meaning, must be used by courts as a tool to tab, even a taboo, on State action drifting away from constitutional values. 15.2. In the case of Shri Rangnath Mishra vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 7 SCC 133 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that fundamental duties should not only be enforced by legal sanctions but also by social sanctions. 16. It is to be noted here that Rule 14 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rule, 2018 provides for recruitment to the post of Headmaster of High School. The qualification prescribed for the post of Headmaster is that a candidate must possess Bachelor Degree from UGC recognized University, B.Ed. from NCTE recognized Institution affiliated to UGC recognized University and teaching experience as Graduate Teacher for a period of 10 years. 17. It also appears from the pleadings and the documents annexed therewith that the petitioner has possessed all the requisite qualification for being appointed as Headmaster. He possesses B. Sc. Degree, M.A Degree and B.Ed. Degree (Annexure 2A, 2B and 3) and he has been serving as Graduate Teacher in Gotanagar Nambari High School since the year 19.11.1991. Whereas, the respondent No.4 has been working in the said School, since 01.03.1999. 18. It also appears that the petitioner had pursued B.Ed. Degree from the Indira Gandhi National Open University in June 2016. It is also not in dispute that the degree obtained under open distance learning mode conferred by IGNOU and KKHSOU and IDOL and Dibrugarh University Distance Education as valid Degree (Annexure 11A) . Further it appears that the petitioner had pursued the B.Ed. course after obtaining NOC from the Headmaster of the School in which has been serving (Annexure-10A). 19. That, perusal of the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure-5) reveals that the respondent No.2, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam has rejected the candidature of the petitioner for being pursued B.Ed. course without prior permission from appointing authority, which is found to be in violation of clause 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965, instead allowed the respondent No.4 to hold the post of In-Charge Headmaster, who was in the fourth position of the seniority list. 20. course without prior permission from appointing authority, which is found to be in violation of clause 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965, instead allowed the respondent No.4 to hold the post of In-Charge Headmaster, who was in the fourth position of the seniority list. 20. Now, the question is whether the impugned action of the respondent No. 2 and the impugned order, dated 16.07.2024, allowing the respondent No.4 to hold the charge of In-Charge Headmaster of Gotanagar Nambari High School, withstands the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness [ (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223)] i.e. whether the respondent No.2 1. had given undue relevance to facts that in reality lacked the relevance for being considered in the decision-making process, 2. had not given relevance to facts that were relevant and worthy of being considered in the decision-making process, 3. had made a decision that was completely absurd, a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have possibly made it, Finding:- 21. But, having examined the impugned order, dated 16.07.2024, in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AIIMS Students Union (supra) and Shri Rangnath Mishra(supra) and also in the light of the Constitutional values as enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution of India specially in Clause (j), this court afraid, the order impugned in this petition failed to withstand the test of reasonableness for the simple reason that while passing the impugned order the respondent No.2 had not taken into account the Office Memorandum, dated 28 th July 2014, clause 6 of which provides that “No permission is required.” and subsequent Memoranda, allowing the teachers of to obtain B.Ed. degree, under open distance learning mode, conferred by IGNOU and KKHSOU and IDOL and Dibrugarh University. 22. This court has taken note of the submission of Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, who had submited that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Headmaster in view of the Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965, as he obtained the B.Ed. degree without formal permission of the authority. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, who had submited that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Headmaster in view of the Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1965, as he obtained the B.Ed. degree without formal permission of the authority. But, the said submissions left this Court unimpressed in as much as through a long stint of judicial pronouncements it has been established that a degree, conferred by a recognized University, is a valid degree and it cannot be invalidated even if it was pursued without permission from the authority. 23. If the degree obtained by the petitioner is a valid degree and if the qualification for holding the post of Head Master is a graduation with B.Ed. degree and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible by satisfying the requisite qualification, the petitioner, being the senior most teacher of the School, is absolutely eligible for holding the post of In-Charge Head Master of the said School. Though the impugned order is an ad-hoc arrangement yet, it violates the legitimate right of the petitioner and he cannot be penalised solely for performance of his fundamental duty as provide in Article 51A (j) of the Constitution of India , i.e. striving towards excellence in academic sphere by pursuing B.Ed. degree. It has been already held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AIIMS Student Union (supra) that though Article 51-A does not expressly cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that the duty of every citizen of India is the collective duty of the State and the state is, all the citizens placed together. 24. The only contention of the respondents is the alleged misconduct of the petitioner obtained B.Ed. degree, without formal permission of the authority, but, the same is yet to be proved by the respondent authorities. It is not the case of the respondents that while pursuing the degree by distant mode from the IGNOU, the petitioner had neglected his duty. And as per clause 6 of the Office Memorandum, dated 28.07.2014, no prior permission shall be required. The only requirement is intimation to respective Head of the Institution and the Inspector of Schools concerned, which the petitioner did vide Annexure-10A. 25. And as per clause 6 of the Office Memorandum, dated 28.07.2014, no prior permission shall be required. The only requirement is intimation to respective Head of the Institution and the Inspector of Schools concerned, which the petitioner did vide Annexure-10A. 25. Besides, the alleged misconduct is yet to be established against the present petitioner and unless the same is established following due process of law, he cannot be deprived of his legitimate right being the senior most teacher of the said School. As already discussed, the petitioner had pursued the course with intimation to the Head of the Institution and the Inspector of Schools. And a conjoint reading of the Rule 13 and the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2014 and Article 51A(J) of the Constitution of India , this Court is left unimpressed that the petitioner had committed any misconduct so as to deprive of him from holding the post of In-Charge Headmaster of Gotanagar Nambari Janajati High School. 26. This court has also taken note of the submission of Mr. Sarma and also gone through the decision in Anurag Mehrotra (supra), wherein it has been held that if there is conflict between executive instruction and of the Rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India . There is no quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law laid down in the said case. But, as discussed here in above, the said proposition has also to be considered in the light of the principle enshrined in Article 51A Clause (j) of the Constitution of India . As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AIIMS Student Union (supra), in case of doubt or choice, people’s wish as manifested through Article 51-A, can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue, but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts. 27. In view of above, and also taking note of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, dated 16.07.2024, fails to withstand the test of reasonableness. And on such count, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a clear case for interference of this court. 28. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 16.07.2024, stands set aside and quashed. And on such count, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing a clear case for interference of this court. 28. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 16.07.2024, stands set aside and quashed. The matter stands remanded to the respondent No.2, i.e. Director of Secondary Education, Assam to pass an appropriate order allowing the petitioner herein, to hold the charge of Headmaster of GotanagarNambari High School. 29. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from the date of receipt of the order. 30. The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out by the respondent authorities within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 31. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own cost.