Quashed

Amin Shamsul Alom v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Mar 2025WP(C)/4650/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Director of Secondary Education rejecting the petitioner's B.Ed degree obtained from Meghalaya in 2015. The Court held that the restrictive notifications applied to distance/off-campus degrees, whereas the petitioner’s degree was obtained through regular mode. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; representation to be examined afresh and speaking order passed within four weeks.

Amin Shamsul Alom Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010169302023

2025:GAU-AS:2426

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4650/2023

¶6

AMIN SHAMSUL ALOM

¶7

SON OF LATE HASEN ALI, RESIDENT OF VILL. NO. 2, DAKSHIM RANGAPANI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781127

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KAMRUP DISTRICT CIRCLE AMINGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031 4:THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON 6-7 SECTOR-10 DWARKA NEW DELHI-11007

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR A CHETIA,MR A CHAKRABORTY

¶11

Page No.# 2/6

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.,

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 07.03.2025

¶16

Heard Mr. A Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶17

The challenge made in this writ petition is an order dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure – A/5), passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara. The aforesaid speaking order was passed on the basis of a prayer petition filed by the petitioner.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner raised in his prayer petition dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure – A/4), was to the extent that though his name was incorporated in the panel list for appointment as Principal in-charge, however, he was not considered for such position for obtaining a B. Ed degree from an institution situated 100 KM away from Guwahati. 4. The Director after considering the prayer of the petitioner came to a conclusion that so far the B. Ed degree obtained by the petitioner is concerned, he obtained such degree from an University situated in Meghalaya in the year 2015. In terms of Notification No.ASE.278/2020/148 dtd 30^th September 2021, any degree obtained from the University of the State is valid within the territorial jurisdiction of the state only and therefore, a degree granted by an University situated in the State of Meghalaya shall not be a valid degree beyond the territory of State of Meghalaya and therefore, the degree of the petitioner obtained from the

¶19

Page No.# 3/6

¶20

University in Meghalaya cannot be accepted.

¶21

Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid notification was issued on 30.09.2021 whereas, the petitioner obtained his degree in the year 2015 and the aforesaid notification being prospective in nature, cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner.

¶22

The employer department has filed an additional affidavit in opposition and has brought on record an office memorandum dated 09.07.2012 contending that even if the notification dated 30.09.2021 is not made applicable to the case of the petitioner, however, the notification issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department dated 09.07.2012 shall cover the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as by virtue of the said notification, the petitioner’s degree obtained from a University of State of Meghalaya cannot be treated as a valid degree for the purpose of appointment as a regular Head Master or as an In-charge Head Master.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶24

From the impugned speaking order, the admitted position as discernible are to the following effect:

¶25

I. The petitioner obtained B. Ed degree from USTM, Meghalaya in the year 2015;

¶26

II. The petitioner was granted NOC by the then Inspector of Schools, Kamrup, and earned leave was granted during the examination period on private ground by the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup;

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

Thus there is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioner obtained the B. Ed degree in the year 2015 from USTM, Meghalaya and that he was granted NOC by the Inspector of School during his examination, however, on private ground and not on examination ground. 10. This court has also perused the notification dated 30.09.2021, which is the basis of the speaking order. The aforesaid notification is issued in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and by the aforesaid notification; Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised School) (Amendment), Service Rules, 2021 was amended.

¶29

By virtue of amendment of Schedule (III), it was prescribed that degree/diplomas obtained from off-campus and Distance Education institutions having recognized study center in the State of Assam which are duly recognized by Distance Education Council under University Grants Commission shall be considered as valid for the purpose of employment under Secondary Education, Department, Assam. However, in respect of those institutions located outside the state of Assam but having a study center in the state which is not recognized by Distance Education Council (DEC) under University Grants Commission (UGC), the degree certificate issued by such institution shall not be considered valid for the purpose of employment under Education Department, Govt. of Assam.

¶30

From the aforesaid amended provision, what is discernible is that the degree and diploma obtained from off campus and through Distance Education, not being recognized under Distance Education Council or under University Grants Commission (UGC), are not to be recognized.

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

Now coming to the case in hand, it is not the case of either of the parties that the degree obtained by the petitioner was through a distance learning mode. It is an admitted position and as recorded hereinabove, that NOC was granted and petitioner was granted leave may be on private ground and on the basis of such earned leave, he appeared in the examination and degree was granted. Therefore, such degree will not come within the definition of a degree/diploma obtained from off-campus Distance Education Institution, though it is located outside the state. It is also not the case of the respondent that the petitioner obtained this degree through a study center which is located in the State of Assam. 14. That being the position, in the considered opinion of this court, the determination made by the Director of Secondary Education in the shape of the impugned order, as recorded hereinabove relating to the B. ED degree, shall not be sustainable and such B. Ed degree obtained by the petitioner in the given facts of the present case cannot be treated as “not recognized degree in terms of the notification dated 30.09.2021,” i.e., by virtue of amendment of Schedule III of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised School) (Amendment), Service Rules, 2021.

¶33

Now coming to the Office Memorandum dated 09.07.2012, the same also relates to off-campus center/study centers and the centers operating through franchise and therefore, such notification shall also not be applicable in the given facts of the present case for the similar reason, as recorded hereinabove relating to notification dated 30.09.2021.

¶34

Accordingly the impugned speaking order so far relating to non recognition of the B. Ed degree of petitioner obtained from USTM Meghalaya stands quashed. Accordingly, the representation of the

¶35

Page No.# 6/6

¶36

petitioner be examined afresh and a speaking order be passed taking note of the determinations made hereinabove.

¶37

The entire exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by the petitioner.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Amin Shamsul Alom v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amin Shamsul Alom v. the State of Assam and 2 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

Ranjit Kumar Bora and 86 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Md. Najeerul Haque Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Bhakti Prasad Sonowal Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Swarup Khersa Vs the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council and 4 Ors.

Subrata Nath and 17 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smti Kabita Gohain Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.