Disposed

Shyamal Kumar Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2019WP(C)/4620/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed the respondent authorities to initiate and complete the promotion process for the petitioner to the post of Headmaster of an upper primary school within six months, noting that the post should not remain vacant while eligible candidates are available.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to complete the promotion process of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster within six months.

Shyamal Kumar Goswami Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010033202017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4620/2017

¶5

1:SHYAMAL KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O. LT. NRIPENDRA CHANDRA GOSWAMI, ASSISTANT TEACHER GRADUATE, BA SITARAM ME SCHOOL, UNDER BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER, HAILAKANDI, R/O. VILL. and P.O. PANCHGRAM, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788802.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

¶10

3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B PURKAYASTHA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

B E F O R E

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶16

01-08-2019

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶18

The petitioner is seeking that the respondent authorities be directed to complete the process of promotion to the post of Headmaster of Upper Primary School in the Hailakandi District.

¶19

The petitioner is presently serving as an Assistant Teacher at Sitaram ME School under BEEO, Hailakandi in the district of Hailakandi. According to the petitioner, he is already eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster of M.E. School by virtue of his seniority and the length of service rendered by him. It is submitted by him that the post of Headmaster of Sitaram ME School is lying vacant and the petitioner is already holding the post on In-charge basis by virtue of his seniority and experience and the said post ought to be filled up on regular basis at the earliest and may not be kept vacant for a long time without any regular Headmaster. It is also submitted by him that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and if vacancy exists and eligible persons are available, the same shall be filled up at the earliest. In the present case, the said principle is applicable with full force.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State fairly admits to the aforesaid legal position and submits that the post of Headmaster should be filled up on regular basis by considering the candidature of the petitioner along with other eligible persons.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities can be directed to take steps at the earliest for filling up the post of Headmaster in Sitaram ME School, Hailakandi as it is not desirable to keep the post vacant without being filled up on regular basis more so when eligible candidates are available. Ordered accordingly. This Court expects that the

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

respondent authorities will initiate and complete the process at the earliest, preferably within 6(six) months.

¶24

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Shyamal Kumar Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamal Kumar Goswami v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Jatindra Chandra Roy Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nurul Islam Bhuyan Vs Pritam Saikia

M/S. Hind Steel Industry Vs the Union of India

Binapani Ray Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Samin Akhtar Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rajdeep Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.