Disposed

Ruhul Amin Mughal v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2018WP(C)/6169/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding a dispute over appointment as Assistant Headmaster of an amalgamated High School. The discretionary relief was to allow the petitioner to make a representation before the Director, who was directed to give the rival respondent an opportunity of hearing before passing a reasoned order. Interim order on 22.09.2017 was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to make representation before Director of Secondary Education, Assam; respondent to be given opportunity of hearing thereon; interim order of 22.09.2017 vacated.

Ruhul Amin Mughal Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010148012017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6169/2017

¶5

1:RUHUL AMIN MUGHAL S/O ABDUR REZZAK MUGHAL VILL. SIMUL KANDI P.O. TAKIMARI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78 DISCHARGING HIS DUTIES AS ASSTT. HEADMASTER OF TAKIMARI HIGH SCHOOL PROVINCIALISED W. E.F. 01-05/2017 TO TILL DATE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N HOSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR.D A KAIYUMR-6

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶10

Date : 04-04-2018

¶11

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶12

Heard Mr. A.R Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department as well as Elementary Education Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. D.A Kaiyum, learned counsel appearing for

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

the respondent No.6.

¶15

The petitioner is the senior most Assistant Teacher as well as the In-charge Headmaster of the Takimari MV School. On the other hand, the respondent No.6 is the regular Headmaster of Takimari Chowali ME Madrassa. Both the schools were amalgamated with the Takimari High School as per the order dated 31.03.2017. As a result, a dispute has arisen for adjudication as to who between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 ought to be the Assistant Headmaster of the amalgamated High School.

¶16

The law in this regard is provided under Rule-14(3) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, wherein it is provided that in case of amalgamated High School, the Headmaster/Head Mistress of the ME School is eligible for selection as the Assistant Headmaster/ Assistant Head Mistress of the amalgamated High School subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, it is to be construed that the Headmaster of the ME School, which is amalgamated with the High School is to be the Assistant Headmaster of the amalgamated High School.

¶17

In the instant case, two ME Schools were simultaneously amalgamated with the High School and therefore, a question would arise as to who between the two should be the Assistant Headmaster. Ordinarily, we could have taken the view that the senior amongst the two Headmasters would be natural choice to be the Assistant Headmaster of the amalgamated High School. But, in the instant case, it is noticed that the writ petitioner is the In-charge Headmaster of the Takimari MV School, which in other words means that his substantial appointment is an Assistant Teacher and not a Headmaster and from such point of view, this Court do not find any infirmity in the order dated 26.07.2017, by which the respondent No.6 was allowed to be the Assistant Headmaster of the amalgamated High School on the strength of he being the Headmaster of the Takimari Chowali ME Madrassa.

¶18

But, however, Mr. A.R Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner raises the issue that for all purpose, the petitioner has the required qualification for being the Headmaster of Takimari MV School and he ought to have been appointed as the Headmaster of the said school based on his qualification and eligibility. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been duly appointed, it was he who would have been the Assistant Headmaster of the amalgamated

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

High School.

¶21

In view of such submission, the petitioner is allowed to make a representation before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, who shall give a due consideration to such claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order thereon. In the said proceeding, for the ends of justice, the respondent No.6 be also given an opportunity of hearing to present his case before the Director.

¶22

In view of the final consideration of the writ petition, the interim order passed on 22.09.2017 stands vacated.

¶23

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Ruhul Amin Mughal v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruhul Amin Mughal v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bina Chetia Vs Mr. Phanindra Jidung and Anr.

Md. Mahibulla Ali Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mousumi Gogoi Vs Ankita Baruah and 5 Ors.

Nikhil Kalita Vs Partha Pratim Mazumdar

Shankaranand Jha Vs Sumita Dowara and 2 Ors.

Binoy Kr. Roy Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.