Smti Manika Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/11

¶2

GAHC010008332026

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/397/2026

¶6

SMTI MANIKA DUTTA WIFE OF LT. GAGAN DUTTA R/O VILL- SUKLAIP.O. PARANGAJULI, DIST. UDALGURI

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SEC) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN781006.

¶9

2:DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

¶10

BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DIST. UDALGURI.

¶11

3:BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

¶12

KOKRAJHAR UDALGURI

¶13

4:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

UDALGURI

DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM

5:HEADMASTER

TANGLA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

¶18

Page No.# 2/11

¶19

TANGLA DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM.

¶20

6:PRAMILA KHAKHLARY ASSISTANT HEADMASTER TANGLA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL TANGLA DIST. UDALGURI ASSA

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHAKRABORTY, MRS P HAZARIKA

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., FOR CAVEATOR,MRS. P B HAZARIKA,MR. S Ali,SC, BTC

¶23

BEFORE

¶24

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Date : 09.03.2026

¶27

Heard Mr. B Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U Sarma, learned standing counsel, Department of Secondary Education appearing for respondent no. 1, Mr. N.R Sarma, learned standing counsel, BTC, appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. None has appeared for the respondent no. 5.

¶28

As consented to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present Writ Petition was taken up for consideration and is being disposed of vide the present order.

¶29

The petitioner, in the present proceeding, has assailed the promotion of the private respondent no. 6, to the post of Assistant Head Mistress in Tangla Girls High School.

¶30

The petitioner, herein, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Tangla Girls’ High School in the Graduate Scale of pay vide issuance of

¶31

Page No.# 3/11

¶32

an order dated 02.01.2014. The petitioner, accordingly, joined her services. The respondent no. 6 was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Jalukbari Adarsha LP School in the year 1993. She was, thereafter, transferred and posted to Pub-Tangla LP School vide order dated 31.12.2016. Thereafter, the Pub Tangla LP School came to be amalgamated with the school of the petitioner i.e. Tangla Girls’ High School vide an order dated 20.05.2017 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Udalguri, in pursuance to the approval granted for such amalgamation by the Government. On the amalgamation of the said school, the petitioner contends that the respondent no. 6, continued as an Assistant Teacher in the Intermediate Scale of pay. The petitioner further projects that it is only vide an order dated 25.08.2021, that the respondent no. 6, on acquiring the Degree qualification, came to be authorized the Graduate Scale of pay w.e.f 01.12.2020.

¶33

It is projected by the petitioner that the services of the respondent no. 6, in the Graduate Scale of pay, can be construed only w.e.f 01.12.2020 and not prior, thereto. The petitioner submits that the respondent authorities, thereafter, considered the cases of the eligible incumbents in various High Schools of the state for promotion to the post of Assistant Head Master, existing in such schools. Accordingly, a similar exercise was carried out for the eligible teachers of Tangla Girls’ High School. The petitioner, along with the respondent no. 6 and one Gautam Boro, were held to be eligible for such promotion.

¶34

The Head Master of Tangla Girls, High School, for the said purpose, prepared a gradation list of the 3 (Three) senior-most teachers of the school, including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, herein. It is projected by the petitioner that the seniority position, as assigned to the petitioner, therein, below the respondent no. 6, is clearly erroneous, in

¶35

Page No.# 4/11

¶36

as much as, in the Graduate cadre, the petitioner having drawn her Graduate Scale of pay, w.e.f 02.01.2014, would rank senior to the respondent no. 6, who had drawn the Graduate Scale of pay, admittedly, w.e.f 01.12.2020. However, the petitioner contends that on account of wrong projection made, with regard to the seniority of the 3 (Three) senior-most incumbents in the school in the said gradation list dated 02.04.2025, the Selection Committee proceeded to recruit the respondent no. 6 as the Assistant Head Mistress of the school, in question.

¶37

Being aggrieved with the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 as the Assistant Head Master of the school in question, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the above facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the recruitment to the post of Assistant Head Master is governed by provisions of Rule 15 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialization of Schools) Rules, 2018. He submits that eligibility for the post of Assistant Head Master is laid out in the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the said Rules. Sub-rule 2 (b) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018 mandates that for promotion as Assistant Head Master, an Assistant Teacher is required to have 10 (ten) years experience as Graduate Teacher in the High School or High Madrassa. The said experience can be garnered by an Assistant Teacher only after being appointed, in such capacity, by the Government.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 6, herein, was authorized a Graduate Scale of pay only w.e.f 01.12.2020 and accordingly, the 10 (ten) years teaching experience, as mandated as a Graduate Teacher in a High School or High Madrassa, for promotion to the post of Assistant Head Master, would be reckonable only w.e.f 01.12.2020.

¶40

Page No.# 5/11

¶41

The learned counsel, by referring to the provisions of Sub-Rule 2 (e) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018, further submits that the same only mandates that a teacher, who was working in the LP School, which school later got amalgamated with the High School, would also be eligible to be considered for selection against the post of Assistant Head Master provided she otherwise, fulfills all other requisite eligibility conditions and has 20 (Twenty) years of teaching experience in both LP Schools and amalgamated school.

¶42

Mr. B Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent no. 6, admittedly, not having had an experience of 10 (Ten) years as a Graduate Teacher in a High School, she cannot be held to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Head Master, only by reckoning the provisions of Sub-rule 2 (e) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018, and accordingly, submits that the selection and promotion of the respondent no. 6, would mandate an interference.

¶43

Mr. N.R Sarma, learned standing counsel, BTC, by placing reliance on the written instructions received by him from the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, fairly submits that the petitioner, herein, had received her pay in the Graduate Scale of pay before the date of receipt of such Graduate Scale of pay by the respondent no. 6, herein. He submits that accordingly, the petitioner is to be construed to be senior in service to the respondent no. 6. He submits that due to an inadvertent oversight in scrutinizing the seniority position of Graduate Teachers of Tangla Girls’ High School, the Departmental Promotional Committee, came to recommend the name of the respondent no. 6 for promotion to the post of Assistant Head Master, overlooking the better claim of the petitioner, herein, who, otherwise, was senior and eligible. He further submits that it is the petitioner who ought to have been offered the promotion to the post of Assistant Head Master considering her seniority

¶44

Page No.# 6/11

¶45

in the Graduate Scale of pay in the school. In the above premises, learned standing counsel, BTC prays that this Court may pass appropriate orders in the matter.

¶46

Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that the seniority of the petitioner must be reckoned from the date the petitioner was appointed in the LP School. He, by referring to the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 24, submits that the provisions, thereunder, supports his contention that the respondent no. 6 is entitled to reckon her seniority in Tangla Girls’ High School with effect from the date of her substantive appointment in Jalukbari Adarsha LP School and such appointment, being from a date prior to the date of appointment of the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 is to be deemed to be senior to the petitioner.

¶47

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶48

The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute.

¶49

The petitioner, in the present proceedings, is in receipt of a Graduate Scale of pay since the date of her initial appointment i.e. w.e.f 02.01.2014. The respondent no. 6 was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Jalukbari Adarsha LP School in the year 1993 and, thereafter, was transferred to Pub Tangla LP School vide an order dated 31.12.2016. Pub Tangla LP School was amalgamated with Tangla Girls’ High School vide an order dated 20.05.2017 and accordingly, from the date of amalgamation of the said school, the respondent no. 6 became a teacher in the Tangla Girls’ High School. The petitioner, being now placed in a High School, and she having the Graduate qualification, she was authorized the Graduate Scale of pay w.e.f 01.12.2020. Considering the date of drawal of Graduate Scale of pay by the petitioner and the

¶50

Page No.# 7/11

¶51

respondent no. 6, herein, it is found that the petitioner, having been authorized the Graduate Scale of pay, ahead of the respondent no. 6, it is the petitioner who would be ranked senior to the respondent no. 6 in the cadre of Graduate Teacher of the School, in question.

¶52

The manner of recruitment to the post of Assistant Head Master is spelt out in the provisions of Rule 15 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules, 2018. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the said Rules mandate that the post of Assistant Head Master of a High School shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Graduate Teachers of the same School on the recommendation of the District Promotional Committee. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the said Rules, lays down the eligibility criterias required to be so met by a Graduate Teacher for being eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Head Master. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 mandates that a Graduate Teacher, in addition to having a degree from a recognized university, must have at least 10 (Ten) years of teaching experience as a Graduate Teacher in a High School. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, further provides that in case of an LP school on being amalgamated with a High School, a teacher of the erstwhile LP School having Degree qualification and 20 (Twenty) years of teaching experience in both LP and amalgamated school, may also be eligible for selection as Assistant Head Maser, if otherwise eligible.

¶53

Although an incumbent working in an LP School which is subsequently, amalgamated with the High School is also made eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Head Master of the High School concerned, provided the incumbent has a degree qualification and 20 (Twenty) years of teaching experience in both LP and amalgamated Schools, the said condition is further qualified with the words “if otherwise eligible”. The words “if otherwise eligible”, in the considered view of the Court, would mean that the teacher concerned must also

¶54

Page No.# 8/11

¶55

satisfy the requirements of Sub-rule (2) (a) and (b) of Rule 15 of the said Rules of 2018. In other words, while the incumbent teacher must have a Graduate qualification, he/she must have also have 10 (ten) years of teaching experience as a Graduate Teacher in a High School, for being considered for promotion against the post of Assistant Head Master. Admittedly, the respondent no. 6, herein, does not fulfill the condition of having 10 (ten) years of teaching experience in a High School as a Graduate Teacher, inasmuch as, the Graduate Scale of pay, in respect of the petitioner, was authorized to her only w.e.f 25.08.2021 and the Pub Tangla LP School, wherein, the respondent no. 6 was so working, was amalgamated with Tangla Girls’ High School on 20.05.2017. Reckoning the date of amalgamation of the schools, as well as the date of authorization to the respondent no. 6, her pay in the Graduate Scale of pay, this Court finds that the respondent no. 6 cannot be held to have satisfied the requirements of having 10 (Ten) years of teaching experience as a Graduate Teacher in a High School.

¶56

The above conclusions drawn by this Court would now bring this Court to consider the criteria requisite to be applied for effecting promotions of Graduate Teachers to the cadre of Assistant Head Master. The criteria, requisite to be applied for promotion of an eligible Graduate Teacher to the post of Assistant Head Master is provided under provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018, which mandates that the selection involved shall be based on satisfactory Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for last three consecutive years and seniority of service in Graduate Scale of pay. Applying the said criteria to the facts of the present case, the promotion being required to be so effected basing on the seniority of service in the Graduate Scale of pay, admittedly, it is the petitioner, who has a longer length of service in the Graduate Scale of pay, who would rank senior to the respondent no. 6,

¶57

Page No.# 9/11

¶58

as a Graduate Teacher. Further it not being brought on record that the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the petitioner contains adverse remarks, disentitling him from being considered for promotion, this Court by reckoning the seniority of the petitioner in the Graduate scale of pay, is of the considered view that it was the petitioner who ought to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Head Master on a vacancy arising, therein, and the promotion effected, in respect of the respondent no. 6, has been so effected in clear violation of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018.

¶59

The Director of Education, BTC, has also projected before this Court that the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6, as Assistant Head master of the school in question, was on account of an oversight committed by the Departmental Promotion Committee, while considering her case for such promotion. It was further projected by the said authorities that it was the petitioner who ought to have been recommended and appointed as the Assistant Head Master of the school in question.

¶60

At this stage, this Court would consider the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, basing on the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2018. The provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 24 of the said Rules of 2018 being relevant is extracted hereinbelow :

¶61

“24. Seniority………………………………………………………………..

¶62

In case of amalgamation of ME/MV/LP School with other Higher Secondary School/High School under the scheme Siksha Khetra, the employees of the amalgamated school shall be given seniority with effect from the date of joining on substantive appointment or regularization:

¶63

Provided that in case of Graduate Teachers the seniority shall be counted from the date of getting salaries meant for a Graduate Teachers:

¶64

Provided further that in case of contractual teachers the seniority shall

¶65

Page No.# 10/11

¶66

be counted from the date of absorption in the sanctioned post carrying regular time scale of pay.”

¶67

A perusal of the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2018 would reveal that in case of teachers of ME/MV/LP Schools, on amalgamation of the School with Higher Secondary School/High School, they shall be entitled to reckon their seniority with effect from the date of joining on substantive appointment or regularization. However, the 1^st proviso to Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2018, clarifies that in case of Graduate Teachers, their seniority would be counted from the date of receipt of salaries meant for Graduate Teachers.

¶68

Accordingly, in view of the provisions of the 1^st proviso to Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2018, the respondent no. 6 would be entitled to reckon her seniority in the cadre of Graduate Teacher in Tangla Girls’ High School only w.e.f 01.12.2020, i.e. the date of receipt, by her, of the Graduate Scale of pay. As such, the provisions of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2018 would not be of any aid to the respondent no. 6 and the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 based, thereon, stands rejected.

¶69

In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, hereinabove, as well as stand taken by the Director of Education, BTC, the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Director of Education, BTC, promoting the respondent no. 6 to the post of Assistant Head Master of Tangla Girls’ High School, stands set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to initiate a fresh process of selection for promoting the eligible Graduate Teacher of the school in question to the vacant post of Assistant Head Master available in Tangla Girls’ High School.

¶70

The said exercise be initiated and concluded within a period of 45 (Forty Five) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶71

Page No.# 11/11

¶72

The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a certified copy of this order before the Director of Education, BTC for compliance.

¶73

In view of the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

Comparing Assistant

Smti Manika Dutta v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Manika Dutta v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rafiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Naba Chutia and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Upendra Chouhan Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Sri Satya Bhuyan Vs Sri Pritam Saikia

Smti Aruna Chutia Vs Sri Pritam Saikia

All Assam Retired Officers Teachers and Employees Committee Vs Shri Jayanta Narlikar, IAS