SREEDAMCHANDRAGHOSH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court made on May 29, 1996 in W. A. No. 165/96 confirming the order of the learned single Judge. While the petitioner was working as an Assistant Graduate Teacher in Kahilipara High School, a regular incumbent of the High School one Keshablal Kanjilal had retired from service on 11-1-1995. The petitioner being the senior-most Assistant Graduate Teacher was asked to officiate in the post till a new incumbent takes charge. The Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Gauhati by his proceedings dated 18-1-1995 asked the petitioner to discharge the additional duties as Headmaster in addition to his duty as a School Assistant Graduate Teacher authorising to draw and disbursement of the salaries. One Mukul Chandra Roy, a regular Headmaster working in Pranab Bidyapity High School as Lumding of Nagaon District has been transferred by order dated 15-2-1996 to the incumbent post in which the petitioner is officiating. This transfer order came to be challenged by the petitioner in the High Court contending that he was promoted as Headmaster on regular basis, therefore, Mukul Chandra Roy cannot be transferred in his place. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench had held that there was no order of appointment to the petitioner promoting him on regular basis as Headmaster; he was continuing as an Officiating Headmaster; the petitioner therefore, has no right to the post as Headmaster and that the transfer order, therefore, was held to be implementable. Since the order of transfer was not being complied with, the High Court had directed the Director of Education to take disciplinary action against the persons responsible for non-compliance thereof. Calling that order in question, this special leave petition has been filed.

(2.) Shri N. N. Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong in placing reliance on Rule 9 of the Secondary Education (Provincialised Service) Rules, 1982. It would apply on the case where regular recruitment by promotion is to be made. Rule 10(a) would be applicable to the petitioner. The post was upgraded by asking the petitioner to officiate and that, therefore, he is entitled to continue in the post. We find no force in the contention. The learned Counsel has read out Rule 10(a) with all the conditions prescribed therein. It is only a procedural part of consideration of the claims of the eligible candidates for promotion of the post of Headmaster. The list is to be drawn by the competent authority, with a recommendation to the Public Service Commission or the Committee, as the case may be, was to consider the respective claims. After receipt of such list, the claims are to be considered by the Public Service Commission or the Committee, as the case may be, within one month for the date of the receipt of the list and then recommendation is to be made for appointment on regular basis. Thereafter appointment requires to be made in accordance with the rules.

(3.) Rule 9 prescribes the qualifications and the procedure for appointment by promotion to the post of Headmaster out of the select list of Vice-Principle, Assistant Headmaster and Post-Graduate Teachers having 15 years continuous teaching experience in the service. Admittedly, there is no order of appointment made to the petitioner. As having been seen from the record, it was only a stop-gap arrangement made of the petitioner to officiate as Headmaster till the regular incumbent assumes office as Headmaster. Therefore, he does not have any right to the post to hang on after the regular incumbent has been transferred to the post.