DHARMENDRA PATOWARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Misunderstanding of the law or deliberate mischief has brought the petitioner to this Court seeking, with the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, various directions from this Court. Though attempted to be made complicated, the admitted facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as under:

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, Mr. B.N. Sarma, Learned Counsel, submits that the order, dated 05.10.2010, passed by the learned Tribunal, is wholly illegal inasmuch as it has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. It is also submitted by Mr. B.N. Sarma, Learned Counsel, that when the writ petitioner had been shown by the authorities concerned as an Assistant teacher senior to the 'private respondent' in Byaskuchi High School, the writ petitioner ought to have been allowed by the learned Tribunal to hold the post as in-charge Headmaster of the said school.

(3.) Reacting to the submissions made by Mr. B.N. Sarma, Learned Counsel, Mr. U.K. Nair, Learned Counsel, has made me traverse through various Rules of the Assam Secondary Education (sic) cialised) Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the '2003 Rules'). Mr. Nair has, first, brought me to the Circular, dated 16.07.2003, issued by the Government of Assam, Education (Personnel) Department, which lays down the guidelines as regards seniority between the teachers of a High School and M.E. School on their amalgamation with each other, and contended that in terms of the guidelines, so issued, while the pay protection has been provided to the teachers of M.E. Schools, with effect form the date of amalgamation of the High School with its M.E. School, the seniority between the teachers of the amalgamated High School and M.E. School concerned shall be counted with effect form the date of amalgamation.