Dismissed

Md. Abdul Jalil Choudhury v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Dec 2018WP(C)/4701/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a teachers' promotion dispute, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the selection of a respondent (who lacks a graduate qualification) for promotion to Headmaster. The Court relied on its own earlier judgment, upholding that eligibility rules do not apply retroactively to teachers appointed prior to 03.09.2001.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; earlier interim order vacated.

Md. Abdul Jalil Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010247362012

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4701/2012

¶5

1:MD. ABDUL JALIL CHOUDHURY

¶6

S/O LT. IMAN ALI R/O TUKTUKI P.O. TUKTUKI DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN781006.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781019.

¶11

3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NAGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE DIST.NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001.

¶12

4:MD. ROUSON ALI

¶13

S/O AHAR ALI VILL- ROWMARI P.O. ROWMARI BEEL VIA-DHING DIST. NAGAON ASSAM

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MISS M SARMAH

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.C BARUAH

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA JUDGMENT

¶18

Date : 06-12-2018

¶19

Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶20

The petitioner having the qualification of graduation in the year 1987 was appointed as an additional teacher in the Rowmari M.E. Madrassa in the district Nagaon w.e.f. 01.12.1979. The respondent No.4 on the other hand was also appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Rowmari M.E. Madrassa, but he does not have the qualification of being a graduate. When the stage had arrived for considering the promotion to the post of Headmaster of the concerned Madrassa both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 were given a consideration. By the select list of Assistant Teachers prepared for the purpose of promotion to the post of Headmaster of various schools of the Nagaon Sub-Division the name of the respondent No.4 was included. The select list specifically states that the educational qualification of the respondent No.4 is P.U passed.

¶21

The selection of the respondent No.4 is being assailed in this writ petition by the petitioner by relying upon a notification dated 23.08.2010 of the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE). The said notification inter alia provides that for the Classes-VI to VIII, the required eligibility for being an Assistant Teacher is a graduate degree with some further qualification in Diploma in Elementary Education or Bachelor in Education. Although the notification provides that a Senior Secondary or its equivalent with 50% marks can also be a required qualification, but the same further requires that along with it a four year Bachelor in Elementary Education would also required. Be that as it may, by relying upon the said notification of the NCTE dated 23.08.2010, the selection of the respondent No.4 has been assailed on the ground that the said respondent having the qualification of P.U. passed is ineligible for being promoted to the post of Headmaster.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department relies upon an earlier adjudication of this Court in the judgment and order dated 10.04.2018 in WP(C) 7522/2013 to contend that the requirement of having a graduate qualification as per the NCTE notification dated 23.10.2008 is inapplicable in respect of such Assistant Teachers who were appointed prior to 03.09.2001.

¶24

In other words, it is the contention that the said adjudication had laid down that in case of such teachers who were appointed prior to 03.09.2001, the requirement of having a graduate qualification as provided in the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 is not required.

¶25

In the instant case as already noticed, the respondent No.4 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher sometime in the year 01.09.1886 which apparently is prior to 02.09.2001. Accordingly, by following the adjudication of this Court in the judgment and order dated 10.04.2018 in WP(C) 7522/2013, the Court is of the view that the ground taken by the petitioner that the respondent No.4 is ineligible to be promoted as a Headmaster inasmuch as, the said respondent does not have the qualification of graduation is unacceptable.

¶26

In view of the above, the writ petition is found of devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

Interim order if any passed earlier stands vacated.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Md. Abdul Jalil Choudhury v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Jalil Choudhury v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhat Ch Bora and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mrs. Malaya Bhattacharyya and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Dilip Robi Das and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pradip Buragohain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Faizur Rahman and 123 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 16 Ors.

Prasanna Kumar Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.