BIJAN BHATTACHARJYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Heard also Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

(2.) The controversy, in this writ petition, has arisen following the retirement, on superannuation, of one Promod Chandra Sharma, senior-most Assistant teacher of Belsor Girls' High School Belsor. While the date of joining of the said incumbent, in the ' said school, was 1.9.1974, the petitioner joined the said school, as Assistant teacher, on 23.12.1983, and the respondent No. 5 joined the said school, as Assistant teacher, on 15.5.1984. While graduate scale of pay was made available to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1984, respondent No. 5 was given graduate scale of pay with effect from 15.5.1984. On the retirement of the said Pramod Chandra Sharma on 30.6.2009, respondent No. 5, namely, Uday Barman, who is an Assistant teacher in the said school holding degrees of B.Sc. and B.Ed., has been allowed, by order, dated 5.10.2009, issued by the respondent No. 3, namely, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to hold the charge of the office of the headmaster of the said school with the financial power to draw and disburse, in terms of Fundamental Rule 49, salary, etc., of the teachers and staff of the said school. The order, dated 5.10.2009, aforementioned clearly mentions that the order aforementioned has been passed as a purely temporary measures. Aggrieved by the fact that the date of joining of the respondent No. 5, in the said school, was later than that of the petitioner, who is also an Assistant teacher serving in the said school, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order, dated 5.10.2009, on the ground that the petitioner, being the senior-most teacher in the said school, was entitled, and ought to have been allowed, to hold the charge of the office of the headmaster of the said school in the absence of a regularly appointed headmaster of the said school.

(3.) On perusal of the materials on record, including the materials made available in the Misc. Application No. 82/2010 filed in this writ petition and the records, made available by the learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, what transpires is that the petitioner is a subject-teacher of Hindi without having B.Ed. Degree; whereas the respondent No. 5 is, as already indicated above, a graduate of Science and B.Ed. Degree