Disposed

The School Selection Committee Cum Smdc v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Apr 2019WA/278/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Single Judge's interference in a school principal selection Committee decision. The Court held that the Single Judge was justified in considering the section results relevant to the teacher's current appointment for leadership skills, despite the interchange rule, and disposed of the appeal with clarifications on mark assignment and other open issues.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with directions to the Selection Committee to appropriately assess leadership marks and consider educational qualifications.

The School Selection Committee Cum Smdc Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010199622018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WA 278/2018

¶5

1:THE SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE CUM SMDC

¶6

KALIGANJ, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT SRI RAJAT KANTI BHATTACHARJEE S/O LATE RAJENDRA CHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PRESIDENT OF SMDC OF KALIGANJ PUBLIC HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALAGANJ , R/O VILL. PONGSANKAR, P.O. BAGBARI, DIST. KARIMGANJ, PIN 788720

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN 781006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781019

¶11

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KARIMGANJ DIST. CIRCLE KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788720

¶12

4:SAM HIGGINBOTTOM INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR REGISTRAR

¶13

P.O. AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

REWAS ROAD NAINI ALLAHABAD UTTAR PRADESH PIN 211007

¶16

5:UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION UGC REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI 110002

¶17

6:SRI AMALENDU DEBNATH PRINCIPAL KALIGANJ PUBLIC HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KALIGANJ P.O. AND P.S. KALIGANJ DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788720

¶18

7:FAKRUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY SUBJECT TEACHER (ENGLISH) CHARGOLA PUBLIC HS SCHOOL P.O. KANISHAIL P.S. KARIMGANJ DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 78871

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJJIKUTTIRA SOMAIAH BOPANNA

¶23

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI

¶24

ORDER

¶25

01.04.2019

¶26

[ A.S. Bopanna, CJ ]

¶27

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for respondent Nos.1—3; Mr.

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

A. Chamuah, learned standing counsel, UGC, appearing for respondent No.5; Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7.

¶30

The appellant herein was the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.3731/2017. Through the order dated 07.08.2018, the learned Single Judge has set aside the selection of the respondent No.5 to the writ petition and has remitted the matter for re-consideration based on the observations made therein. In so far as the merits of the consideration as made by the learned Single Judge, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.5 claimed to be aggrieved and they have not challenged the said order. However, since the selection ultimately made by the respondent No.4 to the writ petition was interfered with by the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.4 to the writ petition has filed the instant appeal.

¶31

The learned Senior counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge would contend that the consideration as made by the learned Single Judge to take into consideration only the respective sections of the school, namely, the results of the HSSLC section in respect of the writ petitioner and the results of the HSLC section in respect of the respondent No.5 to assess their leadership skill would not be justified. The learned Senior counsel in that regard seeks to refer to the office memorandum dated 19.03.2012 to indicate that through the said office memorandum, the Education Department has permitted the inter-change of the teachers depending on their educational qualification. In that regard, it is pointed out that the teachers engaged for teaching Class-IX and X, if they possess the postgraduate degree, are permitted to teach the Class-XI and XII and the indication therein was also vice-versa. Hence, it is contended that in such circumstance, the average of the result in both these sections are to be taken into consideration while awarding the marks for the leadership skill, which has been adopted by the appellant Selection Committee and in that circumstance, when a consideration was made, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering.

¶32

The contention on behalf of the writ petitioner and the official respondents herein is that the learned Single Judge was justified in the manner the consideration was made as the result of the section to which a particular teacher was appointed is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the leadership skill. In that regard, if the fact that the petitioner had been engaged as a teacher for the HSSLC in the Chargola Public Higher Secondary School is taken note, the percentage of marks for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 at 89.6% and 88% was required to be taken into consideration, which accordingly has been considered by the learned Single Judge.

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

In that regard, it is pointed out that in respect of the respondent No.5 to the writ petition, the material on record indicated that the school where he was teaching, namely, Kaliganj Public High School, would indicate that the result of the relevant years in HSLC was 33% and 31.7%, respectively. In that light, when the leadership skill was assessed keeping in view the relevant orders applicable at that point, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference.

¶35

In the background of the contention as put forth, we have referred to the appeal papers including the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. In that regard, it is noticed that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the average of the results of the two academic years as referred to consider the case of the parties.

¶36

In that regard, having taken note of the percentage of the result in respect of HSLC in Chargola Public Higher Secondary School, where the writ petitioner was teaching, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that as per the said percentage of the result, the marks as assigned would not be justified.

¶37

In the background of the contentions put forth and the consideration made by the learned Single Judge, if the office memorandum dated 19.03.2012 relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant is taken note, it is seen that even though the said office memorandum permits the inter-change of the teachers depending on the educational qualification, the same does not indicate that the same is also to be made a basis for the purpose of appointment of a Principal to a school based on such permission as granted for the inter-change of the teachers. However, with regard to the appointment of the Principal, in respect of the criteria that is to be taken into consideration, the order dated 23.06.2016 would be relevant. In that regard, the assessment of leadership skill for which 5 marks is assigned, would indicate the basis on which such assessment is to be made. The relevant column reads as hereunder:-

¶38

“Leadership Skills = 5 Marks

¶39

Based on the result of HSLC/AMH/HSSLC of current year (2016) and last year (2015) of the school in which the person is working at present.

¶40

The candidate will produce the result sheet duly certified by the Principal of the institution where he/she is presently serving.”

¶41

A perusal of the same would indicate that the candidate will produce the result sheet duly certified by the Principal of the institution, where he/she is presently serving. Though as per the office memorandum, there is permissibility of exchange of the teachers to the different sections while assessing a candidate on the leadership skill, the appointment to a particular section would be the

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

basis i.e. to say, if a teacher is appointed to teach the HSSLC section, the result of that section for the particular year would be the basis even though based on the said office memorandum for certain period of time such teacher may also have taught in HSLC section. The same principle would apply vice-versa in respect of the teacher who is teaching the HSLC section and even if permitted at some point to teach the HSSLC section.

¶44

In that background, if the order passed by the learned Single Judge is taken into consideration, since in the instant facts the percentage of result in the respective sections where the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 to the writ petition have taught is taken into consideration, to that extent, the learned Single Judge was justified. However, we notice that the learned Single Judge while taking note of the percentage has also indicated the mark that is to be assigned. To that extent, we observe that the mark as indicated by the learned Single Judge is only as an instance for the consideration, but the appropriate mark to be assigned shall be taken note by the Selection Committee while assessing the leadership skill based on the above observation.

¶45

Further, with regard to the educational qualification of respondent No.5, the learned Single Judge has only referred to the contention and has left it open for the Selection Committee to take into consideration that aspect as well. While approving the same, it is further indicated that the said consideration with regard to the validity of the educational qualification of the writ petitioner is also left open to be taken note by the Selection Committee and an ultimately decision to be taken in that regard.

¶46

Since we have with the above observation concluded in the same manner that the matter would require re-consideration by the Selection Committee, we do not find it necessary to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of with the above clarifications.

¶47

Sd/Sd/- JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Comparing Assistant

The School Selection Committee Cum Smdc v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The School Selection Committee Cum Smdc v. the State of Assam and 6 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

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs a. Saibaba

Raju Mahanta Vs the Board of Secondary Education, Assam and 3 Ors.

Mithu Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewage Board Vs Azizur Rahman and 2 Ors.

Mukut Saloi Vs Bandana Mukutamoni Choudhury

MD Raifuddin Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.