MOSAID ALI LASKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant along with 2 others had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No 252/2009 with the prayer to direct the Respondent Nos 1 and 2 to re-examine / cancel the gradation list for promotion to the post of Headmaster and/or to issue a direction to prepare school-wise gradation list by placing their seniority on the basis of their original appointments. Since similar issues were involved in some other writ petitions, all these writ petitions were heard together, and vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2010, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the Appellant joined SC Girls? Senior Basic School as Assistant Teacher on 20.7.1984. Though not very clear at what point of time, it would appear that he was subsequently serving in GC MV School. According to him, being the senior most teacher in the school, he was allowed to continue as in-charge Headmaster after the death of the earlier incumbent in GC MV School. The Appellant along with others had submitted representation dated 28.11.2007 pointing out the anomalies and the infraction to Rule 2 of the notification dated 30.8.86 while preparing the provisional gradation list dated 21.11.2007 circulated by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi. However, without taking into consideration his original date of appointment, his name was wrongly placed at serial No 46 in the final gradation list dated 10.6.08. It was also the contention of the Appellant in the writ petition that the senior teachers of the school had submitted their "No Objection Certificate" for allowing the Appellant to continue as the Headmaster of the school. In spite of such ""No Objection Certificate" furnished by the teachers of the school, one Md Manjur Ali Laskar was appointed as the Headmaster of the school. The writ petition was structured broadly on the aforesaid factual matrix praying for directions as aforesaid.

(3.) As the other 2 writ Petitioners had chosen not to prefer an appeal, this Court does not consider it necessary to recite the material particulars with regard to said 2 writ Petitioners.