Allowed

Md. Nazimuddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2019WP(C)/639/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition seeking appointment as Principal, holding that the Inspector of Schools had no authority to interfere with the selection panel. The Court quashed a speaking order passed by two officers acting without the complete State Selection Board and directed a fresh meeting within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the illegal speaking order was quashed; a valid State Selection Board was directed to meet within 15 days.

Md. Nazimuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010023442018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 639/2018

¶5

1:MD. NAZIMUDDIN AHMED S/O MD. JAMIRUDDIN R/O VILL- DHEKENABARI P.O. AND P.S. CHHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN - 781124.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶9

2:DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

¶10

3:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL BARPETA DISTRICT CIRCLE BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶11

PIN - 781301.

¶12

4:SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE

¶13

FOR THE POST OF PRINCIPAL OF DR. ZAKIR HUSSAIN H.S. SCHOOL ALOPATI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDENT MANAGING COMMITTEE OF DR. ZAKIR HUSSAIN H.S. SCHOOL ALOPATI P.O. ALOPATI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN - 781127

¶14

Page No.# 2/9

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DUTTA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 08-03-2019

¶20

Heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam.

¶21

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a

¶22

direction to the respondents to appoint him as regular Principal of Dr. Jakir Hussain Higher Secondary School, Alopati, Barpeta.

¶23

3. Case of the petitioner is that he joined as subject-teacher in the Nagarbera Higher Secondary School, Kamrup, Assam on 06.09.1989. Petitioner is not only a master degree holder but has also obtained B. Ed degree. He is thus eligible to be appointed as Principal of provinciliased Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Assam as per Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 (2003 Rules).

¶24

4. An advertisement was published on 09.09.2017 for filling up of vacant post of Principal of Dr. Jakir Hussain Higher Secondary School (School). Petitioner responded to such advertisement and applied for the post.

¶25

5. It is submitted that recruitment to the post of Principal of Higher Secondary Schools is governed by the provisions of Rules 12 and 13 of the 2003 Rules. To give effect to the aforesaid provisions, Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department had issued office memorandum dated 06.06.2014 laying down guidelines for such selection.

¶26

Page No.# 3/9

¶27

6. Interview was held on 21.09.2017. Though four candidates had applied for the post, three candidates including the petitioner appeared in the interview. Following the interview, School Selection Committee prepared the panel list of candidates wherein petitioner was placed in the first position as he secured highest marks of 21. School Selection Committee forwarded the said panel to the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta District Circle vide letter dated 22.09.2017 for onward forwarding to the State Selection Board for approval. It is alleged that instead of forwarding the panel as submitted by the School Selection Committee, Inspector of Schools, Barpeta District Circle kept the matter pending at his level and thereafter returned it back to the School Selection Committee with instruction to grant more marks to one of the candidates and to exclude marks awarded to the petitioner under the heading ‘experience’.

¶28

7. School Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12.11.2017 reiterated its earlier decision and informed the same to the Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 12.11.2017.

¶29

8. Grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding such reiteration by the School Selection Committee, no consequential steps have been taken. As a result, the selection process has reached a stalemate.

¶30

9. It is with such grievance that the present writ petition has been filed.

¶31

10. This Court by order dated 12.02.2018 had issued notice and directed the Inspector of Schools to file a personal affidavit.

¶32

11. Smt. Jyotsna Rani Barman, Inspector of Schools, Barpeta District Circle has filed an affidavit on 09.03.2018. In her affidavit, more particularly, in paragraph-6 thereof, she has stated that she had submitted the panel list forwarded to her by the School Selection Committee to the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 04.10.2017.

¶33

Page No.# 4/9

¶34

Thereafter, she received telephone call from the office of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department; she was advised to look into two aspects of the matter in consultation with the School Selection Committee. The two aspects are –

¶35

( 1 ). Master degree of one of the candidates, namely, Mirza Firoz Nabi Alhadi;

¶36

( 2 ) Awarding of marks under the heading ‘experience’ to the petitioner.

¶37

11.1. It is in such circumstances that she had written to the Member Secretary to the School Selection Committee on 03.11.2017 to look into the above two aspects of the matter.

¶38

11.2. It is further stated that pursuant to her letter dated 03.11.2017, School Selection Committee held a meeting on 12.11.2017 whereafter it resubmitted the panel list which was forwarded to the office of the Director of Secondary Education on 16.11.2017. She has stated that to the best of her knowledge, panel list submitted by School Selection Committee has been forwarded to the office of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department for consideration of the same by the State Selection Board.

¶39

12. If what the Inspector of Schools has stated in her affidavit is correct, then it is indeed a very serious matter.

¶40

13. The 2003 Rules lay down the procedure for selection of Principal.

¶41

14. Instead of following the said procedure, Inspector of Schools has stated that she was telephonically informed by the office of the Commissioner and Secretary of the Secondary Education Department to look into two aspects of the matter relating to the selection as

¶42

Page No.# 5/9

¶43

noted above. This was totally uncalled for, unwarranted and unauthorized since such a procedure is not prescribed under the 2003 Rules.

¶44

15. At this stage, it is submitted by Mr. Abedin that Director of Secondary Education, Assam has filed affidavit. The said affidavit may be placed on record.

¶45

15.1. A copy of the said affidavit has been placed before the Court by Mr. Abedin, which has been perused.

¶46

16. As per this affidavit, in the panel list submitted by the School Selection Committee dated 21.09.2017 which was forwarded by the Inspector of Schools on 22.09.2017, petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 in the list of selected candidates. This list is signed by all the members. But it is stated that Inspector of Schools submitted another panel list on 04.10.2017 in which one Mirza Firoz Nabi Alhadi was placed in the first position and petitioner was placed in the third position. This list is undated and unsigned.

¶47

17. It is further stated that State Selection Board in its meeting held on 07.12.2018 found certain confusion in respect of the selection and it was decided to conduct a de novo selection which was informed to the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta by the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Assam vide letter dated 09.01.2019. In this connection, a speaking order dated 10.01.2019 was passed by the State Selection Board.

¶48

18. Rule 12 of the 2003 Rules, more particularly Sub-Rule (2) thereof, deals with minimum qualifications required for appointment to the post of Principal in Higher Secondary or Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools. Rule 13 lays down the procedure for selection of Principal. As per Sub-Rule (2), interview of the eligible candidates who had applied is required to be conducted by the School Selection Committee on the basis of qualities, such

¶49

Page No.# 6/9

¶50

as, leadership skills, administrative ability, integrity and commanding personality and thereafter to prepare a panel of three names.

¶51

19. School Selection Committee is constituted in terms of Rule 8(4).

¶52

20. The panel so prepared shall be forwarded through the concerned Inspector of Schools to the State Selection Board which is constituted under Rule 16.

¶53

21. As per Rule 16, State Selection Board shall be constituted by the State Government for recommendation of candidates for the post of Principal of Higher Secondary/Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools comprising of the following members:-

¶54

(1) Commissioner and Secretary, Secondary Education Department or his nominee not below the rank of Joint Secretary who shall be the Chairman;

¶55

(2) Director of Secondary Education, Assam who shall be the Member Secretary;

¶56

(3) One reputed educationist, either an officer of the Assam Education Service or a Principal of a Higher Secondary School to be nominated by the Government as Member.

¶57

22. After receipt of the panel prepared by the School Selection Committee, State Selection Board shall prepare a select list equal to the number of vacancies. It shall thereafter recommend the same to the Government and the Government may after causing such verification as may be deemed necessary, accord approval for appointment.

¶58

23. From the scheme of selection as above, what transpires is that there is no role for the Inspector of Schools to interfere in the process of selection of Principal. Inspector of Schools cannot instruct School Selection Committee to award marks or to deduct marks from particular candidates. This is unauthorized and beyond the rules. Secondly, there is no scope

¶59

for telephonic instructions under the rules. The panel of names forwarded by the School

¶60

Page No.# 7/9

¶61

Selection Committee is required to be considered by the State Selection Board by taking into consideration qualities, such as, leadership skills, administrative ability, integrity and commanding personality. Thereafter, State Selection Board is to prepare the list. It is not the duty of the State Selection Board to ask the Inspector of Schools or School Selection Committee to prepare the panel or to make recommendation in a particular manner. If it does not find the panel prepared by the School Selection Committee to be in order, State Selection Board is mandated under the 2003 Rules to prepare the select list on the touchstone of the aforesaid criteria and is not bound by the panel of names so forwarded by the School Selection Committee.

¶62

24. In matters of selection, there cannot be telephonic deliberations or instructions. Everything has to be in black and white.

¶63

25. From the affidavit of the Director, what is seen is that there are two panel lists, one dated 29.01.2017 which is prepared by the School Selection Committee and signed by all the Members of the Committee. The other one is undated and unsigned forwarded by the Inspector of Schools. Naturally, such a panel has got no legal sanctity.

¶64

26. Second crucial aspect which has come out from the affidavit of the Director is a speaking order passed by the Chairman and Member Secretary of the State Selection Board on 10.01.2009. Firstly, speaking order has not been passed or cannot be construed to have been passed by the State Selection Board. Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department acting as the Chairman and Director of Secondary Education acting as Member Secretary do not comprise or constitute State Selection Board minus the third member, i.e., one reputed educationist nominated by the Government.

¶65

Page No.# 8/9

¶66

Therefore, this speaking order has got no legal sanctity.

¶67

26.1. Secondly and more importantly, these two officers ought not to have been passed the speaking order dated 10.01.2009 when this Court is in seisin of the matter. Time and again, Supreme Court as well as this Court had cautioned the administrative authorities not to initiate parallel proceedings when the Court is in seisin of a matter and thereby rendering the proceedings before the Court redundant.

¶68

26.2. Thirdly, the 2003 Rules do not contemplate passing of speaking order by the State Selection Board. There is no requirement for passing such speaking order.

¶69

27. In so far the present case is concerned, Court is considering the selection process for the post of Principal of the School. The two officials have passed the speaking order dated 10.01.2019 rendering the subject-matter of the Court proceeding ineffective. Such order of the two officials in fact amounts to a contumacious conduct on their part.

¶70

28. In that view of the matter, the second (undated) panel list forwarded by the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta District Circle as well as the so called speaking order dated 10.01.2019 would be of no legal consequence.

¶71

29. Since the Joint Secretary acting as the Chairman had passed the illegal speaking order and had not conducted himself appropriately, Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secondary Education Department shall remove that Joint Secretary as Chairman of the State Selection Board and constitute the State Selection Board strictly in accordance with Rule 16 of the 2003 Rules by himself being the Chairman thereof.

¶72

30. State Selection Board so constituted shall now meet within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and consider the panel forwarded by the

¶73

Page No.# 9/9

¶74

School Selection Committee on 21.09.2017 and act on the same in terms of Rule 13(4) of the 2003 Rules and make necessary recommendation to the State Government within a period of 15 days from the date of its sitting.

¶75

31. For the unbecoming conduct of the officials, cost of Rs.25,000.00 each are imposed on the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secondary Education Department, Director of Secondary Education, Assam and Inspector of Schools, Barpeta District Circle. The said amount shall be deposited by the above three officials in the office of the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee with due intimation to the Registrar General of this Court within 60 days. If the above amounts are not deposited, Registrar General shall do the needful in accordance with law.

¶76

32. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶77

JUDGE

¶78

Comparing Assistant

Md. Nazimuddin Ahmed v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nazimuddin Ahmed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pan Parag India Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Cachar Native Joint Stock Company Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Harmohan Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ratul Hati Kakoty Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Syed Sahnawaz Sarif Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pranita Deka Vs Bhabesh Deka