IBRAHIM ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner by questioning the legality and validity of an order dtd. 22/6/2017 issued in favour of the respondent no. 6 appointing him as the Principal of the Singimari Md. Ali Higher Secondary School (hereinafter, School). The principal ground of challenge is that the said respondent no. 6 was not eligible for such appointment on the relevant date and therefore, could not have been appointed. On the other hand, the petitioner had fulfilled all the requisite qualification and eligibility and therefore, was liable to be offered the said appointment.

(2.) Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in this case, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.

(3.) The petitioner is a Post Graduate subject teacher of the School. Pursuant to an advertisement dtd. 22/6/2016 for filling up of the post of regular Principal of the School, the petitioner, respondent no. 6 and few other persons had offered their candidature. The said respondent no. 6 is however a Graduate Teacher. Though, the Rules holding the field namely, the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rule, 2003 (as amended in 2012) (hereinafter called the Rules), allows both Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers to be considered for appointment as Principal in a Higher Secondary School, different eligibility criteria are prescribed. To be more specific, whereas a Graduate Teacher is required to have a teaching experience of 17 years as qualifying service, a Post Graduate Teacher is required to have a teaching experience of 15 years as qualifying service. The aforesaid Rules is also reiterated in an Office Memorandum dtd. 6/6/2014. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that on the date of submission of application for the aforesaid post of Principal pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 22/6/2016, the respondent no. 6 did not have the qualifying service of 17 service. However, the said respondent no. 6 has been considered and appointed as Principal of the School, vide impugned order dtd. 22/6/2017. The petitioner contends that the crucial date for meeting the eligibility criteria is the last date of application as stipulated in the advertisement and in the instant case, on such date, the respondent no. 6 have completed only 16 years 7 months and 7 days.