Mamoni Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19 ASSAM. 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS TINSUKIA DISTRICT CIRCLE DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. 4:SANGITA SHARMA W/O- DULAL BARUAH R/O- BORDOLOI NAGAR SECTOR-3 P.O P.S AND DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-78612

¶10

Page No.# 2/7

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS L RONGPIPI, MR. B DUTTA,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA,MR JITENDRA DAS

¶12

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

¶13

– B E F O R E –

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. B Dutta; Mr. S. Deka; Mr. J. Das; Ms. L.

¶16

Rongpipi.

¶17

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. D. Mushahary, SC, Secondary Education

¶18

Department.

¶19

Date on which judgment

¶20

is reserved : N/A

¶21

Date of pronouncement

¶22

of judgment : 15.07.2026.

¶23

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No.

¶24

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes.

¶25

Page No.# 3/7

¶26

J UDGMENT & ORDER

¶27

Heard Mr. B Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D Mushahary, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department for the respondents.

¶28

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, issued under the signature of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to act as the In-charge Principal of Sarvajanin HS Valika Vidyalaya, Tinsukia, on the ground that she had obtained the M.A. degree in 2018 while in service without obtaining prior permission from the appointing authority, allegedly in violation of Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

¶29

3 . The brief facts of the case are that, by the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, respondent No. 4 was allowed to hold the post of In-charge Principal of the said school, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The rejection was purportedly on the ground that although the petitioner stood first in the seniority list, she had obtained her M.A. degree without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, as allegedly required under the Rules, and was, therefore, not qualified to hold the post of In-charge Principal. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶30

4 . It is submitted at the Bar that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jayanta Neog & Ors -Vs- State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary & Ors. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine Gau 2406 .

¶31

The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:

¶32

“ 33. The authorities cannot remain in oblivion that it is the Service Rules based on which the misconduct can be alleged for prosecuting higher education in

¶33

Page No.# 4/7

¶34

violation of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965. When distance learning mode for prosecution of higher studies is recognized by the State in the Education Department, the same will be one of the most important consideration, even before alleging violation of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965, i.e., prosecuting higher education without obtaining permission from the authority inasmuch as the Rules and the OMS referred hereinabove itself permits prosecution of higher studies through distance learning mode and it is an admitted position that in distance learning mode, there is no regular class to be attended and the examinations are held on Sunday as recorded hereinabove The fact remains that it was also clarified that for obtaining such a degree through distance mode from IDOL, Gauhati. University and Dibrugarh University, there shall be no requirement of prior permission from the authority concerned.

¶35

37. Therefore, neither this Court can remain oblivious to the fact that distance learning is a reality as of the day, nor the employer in the education department. In the considered opinion of this Court, taking note of such object, the State had issued the OMs dated 13.09.2012, 07.07.2014, 28.07 2014 & 22. 11. 2019 and amended Schedule III of the Rules, 2018. Infact in the Notification dated 28.07.2014, the State In Education Department has clarified that for prosecution of such studies through distance mode, there shall be no requirement for obtaining permission from the employer, if such studies and degrees are prosecuted through distance mode from IDOL, distance learning from Gauhati University, distance learning from Dibrugarh University.

¶36

38. That being the position, in the totality of the matter and in the considered opinion of this Court, a teacher who obtains B.Ed degree or Post Graduate degree from these Institutions, i.e., KKHSOU, IGNOU, IDOL, Gauhati University, Distance Learning Mode Dibrugarh University or any other distance learning institutions, that may, by special or general order, the State in Education Department recognizes, no permission shall be required for prosecuting such studies through distance mode. Even the aforesaid OM mandates the grant of leave for practical examination as well as to attend the examinations.

¶37

42. At the cost of repetition, it is recorded that Rule 13, debars studies in an educational Institution, which results dislocation of government service and the same can happen, when a government servant prosecutes studies in an institution keeping himself abstained from duties. In case of distance learning mode from the scheduled Institutions, such scope is admittedly not there. Thus, a conjoint reading of both the rules and the determination recorded hereinabove, leaves no room of doubt in the mind of this Court that prosecuting higher studies by a serving teacher without permission from the scheduled Institutions as enumerated under Schedule-III of the Rules, 2018, cannot be termed as a misconduct in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965. At the same

¶38

Page No.# 5/7

¶39

time, the service rule holding the field, i.e., the Rules, 2018 itself recognizes and permits acquisition of higher studies from certain recognized institutions under Schedule-III of the Rules, 2018 through distance mode by the serving teachers. 47. Accordingly, the determinations made hereinabove are summarised as follows:

¶40

(1) Permission to prosecute studies by a government servant in an educational institution is a sine qua non in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965

¶41

(II) Such permission can be refused in terms of the proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965, when such prosecution creates dislocation of the work or stands in the way of efficient discharge of duties by the government servant and leaves a big gap in the working strength.

¶42

(iii) The object of recognition of Scheduled institutions (Schedule-III) for pursuing higher studies through distance mode is to facilitate the serving teachers to acquire the required professional and educational qualifications, so that the standard of imparting education is maintained without hampering regular classes of schools and/or without disturbing the day-to-day work.

¶43

(iv) A conjoint reading of both the rules (Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965 as well as Schedule-III of the Rules, 2018) and the determination as recorded herelnabove, leave no room of doubt in the mind of this Court that prosecuting higher studies by serving teachers without permission from the scheduled institutions as enumerated under Schedule-III of the Rules, 2018, cannot be termed as a misconduct in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965.

¶44

(v) Permission mandated under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965 cannot be made applicable in prosecuting studies by Teachers (whose service conditions are controlled by Rules, 2018) through distance mode from the scheduled Universities/Institutions enumerated under Schedule-III of the Rules, 2018.

¶45

(vi) Determination made in Mouchumi Saharia (supra) cannot be termed as any direction to the authorities in Education Department to initiate departmental proceeding against all the teachers, who prosecuted studies through distance mode from the scheduled institutions Incorporated in Schedule-III of the Rules, 2018.

¶46

(vii) When there is no dispute that the petitioners had obtained their degrees through distance mode from KKHSOU, IDOL, Gauhati University, Dibrugarh University and Assam University in terms of prescriptions made under OM dated 28.07.2014 and OM dated 22 11.2019, therefore, Rule 13 of the Rules, 1965, cannot be made applicable to these teachers taking clue from observation made in paragraph 4 of Mouchumi Saharia (Supra)

¶47

(viii) Accordingly, if any proceeding has already been Initiated against the petitioners during the pendency of these two petitions, the same shall fail.”

¶48

5. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner obtained her

¶49

Page No.# 6/7

¶50

M.A. degree in the year 2018 while she was in service. It is also not in dispute that, while obtaining the said degree, she had not obtained prior permission from the respondent authorities, although she had applied for the same vide her letter dated 28.06.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

¶51

6 . In Jayanta Neog (supra), this Court has categorically held that no prior permission is required for obtaining a degree through the distance mode from IDOL, Gauhati University or Dibrugarh University. It appears that, in the present case, the petitioner obtained her M.A. degree through the distance mode from Dibrugarh University.

¶52

7 . Ms. D. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, fairly submits that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Jayanta Neog (supra). She further submits that the petitioner is admittedly the senior-most amongst the eligible incumbents for the post of In-charge Principal of the school in question.

¶53

8 . In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to verify the case of the petitioner and consider her for appointment as the In-charge Principal of Sarvajanin HS Valika Vidyalaya, Tinsukia, in accordance with law.

¶54

9 . Ordered accordingly.

¶55

10 . The interim order dated 22.07.2024, whereby the appointment of respondent No. 4 as In-charge Principal was stayed, shall stand merged with this order.

¶56

11 . Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶57

12 . It is clarified that the respondent authorities shall forthwith verify the claim of the petitioner and take consequential steps in accordance with law, as the school is presently functioning without a Principal, preferably within a period of two weeks from

¶58

Page No.# 7/7

¶59

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶60

13 . With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Comparing Assistant

¶63

Digitally signed Pranab by Pranab Kumar Deka Kumar Date: 2026.07.15 Deka 16:09:36 +05'30'

Mamoni Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamoni Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti Mamani Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dipendra Nath Thakuria and Anr. Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Manita Devi Vs Dr. Bijoya Choudhury and 5 Ors.

Lut Ahmed Barbhuiya, Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Lut Ahmed Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gs 183761W Udc Sri Shashi Bhushan Pandey Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.