High Court · 2012

None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel Education Depa rtment appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr. Dutta, learned cou nsel appearing for the respondent No.4. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the action on th e part of the respondent authorities to allow the respondent No.4 to continue as the headmaster in-charge of Govindopur (West) M.E. School contending that thoug h he is senior to the respondent No.4, his claim has been ignored. The petitione r has also prayed for a direction to promote him to the post of headmaster of th e said school, keeping in view the office memorandum dated 26.07.2004. According to the petitioner, though he is senior to the respondent No.4, the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar at Silchar allowed the respon dent No.4 to hold the charge of the headmaster of Govindopur (West) M.E. School initially for a period of 3(three) months vide order dated 28.05.2001, which, ho wever, was subsequently extended vide order dated 06.07.2001 pending publication of the final gradation list in respect of assistant teachers of M.E. Schools/ M adrassas of Cachar district. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereaft er the selection process was initiated for selection of the incumbent for appoin tment as regular headmaster wherein the petitioner participated and he was selec ted and placed at Sl. No.99 of the select list published in the month of Septemb er, 2003. It is also the contention of the petitioner that despite the selection made the petitioner has not been appointed on regular basis and the respondent No.4 has been allowed to continue as in-charge headmaster. The petitioner has, t herefore, prayed for a direction as noticed above. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. The respondent No.4 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has contended that though he was initially allowed to hold the charge of the headmaster, he was, ho wever, subsequently vide order dated 30.10.2004 was allowed to serve as the regu lar headmaster of the said school and against the substantive post. It has also been contended that the same was done pursuant to the directions issued vide ord er dated 20.12.2000 passed in WP(C) No.7120/2000. The learned standing counsel Education Department submits that it is evi dent from the communications dated 23.08.2004 and 10.02.2005 issued by the Distr ict Elementary Education Officer, Cachar at Silchar that the selection process f or the post of headmaster of the said school was initiated and the District Elem entary Education Officer has submitted a proposal to the Officer on Special Duty in the office of the Director of Elementary Education seeking necessary advice relating to the appointment of the regular headmaster of the aforesaid school. I t has also been submitted that if the said process has not been finalized meanin g thereby that the select list has been prepared but no appointment has been mad e, the same shall be done within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits tha t the petitioner has only challenged the orders whereby and whereunder the respo ndent No.4 has been allowed to hold the charge of headmaster and not the subsequ ent order dated 30.10.2004 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer r egularizing the services of the petitioner as headmaster of the said school and against a substantive vacancy. There is no dispute that the respondent No.4 was initially allowed to ho ld the charge of the headmaster of the aforesaid school for a period of 3(three) months vide order dated 28.05.2001 passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, which was however extended vide subsequent order dated 06.07.2001 passe d by the same authority, pending publication of the final gradation list in resp ect of the assistant teachers of the M.E. Schools/Madrassas of the district. It appears from the interview call letter dated 17.05.2003 (Annexure-V t o the writ petition) issued to the petitioner that a process for selection of th e teachers for promotion to the post of headmaster of the school in question was initiated by the DEEO, Cachar at Silchar. The communication dated 23.08.2004 (A nnexure-VIII-A to the writ petition) issued by the DEEO, Cachar at Silchar to th e Director of Elementary Education, Assam also reveals the initiation of the sel ection process for appointment to the post of headmaster and holding of the inte rview in the month of May, 2003 for that purpose. The DEEO by the said communica tion has forwarded the particulars of both the writ petitioner and the responden t No.4, who came under the purview of selection. By the said communication the a dvice from the Director was sought for to whom the order of promotion to the pos t of headmaster is to be issued indicating that the respondent No.4 has been wor king as in-charge headmaster. The DEEO thereafter vide another communication dat ed 10.02.2005 (Annexure-IX to the writ petition) has informed the Officer on Spe cial Duty in the office of the Director of Elementary Education about the claim of the respondent No.4 for appointment on regular basis so also of the writ peti tioner. In the said communication it has been indicated that the respondent No.4 has been working as in-charge headmaster of the aforesaid school and the post i s vacant. The said communication was issued much after the order dated 30.10.200 4 passed by the DEEO (Annexure-H to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the res pondent No.4), whereby and whereunder it is stated that the appointment of the r espondent No.4 as headmaster is treated on regular basis and against a substanti ve post. This Court fails to understand as to how the DEEO, Cachar at Silchar cou ld pass such an order dated 30.10.2004 regularizing the services of the responde nt No.4 as headmaster when he himself on 10.02.2005 has informed the Officer on Special Duty in the office of the Director of Elementary Education that the resp ondent No.4 is holding the charge of the headmaster only and the said post is va cant. Hence the respondent No.4 cannot be treated as regular headmaster but as t he headmaster in-charge only. Since the process of regular selection has already initiated for which i nterview has been conducted in the month of May, 2003 about which the DEEO has a lso informed the Director vide the aforesaid communication dated 23.08.2004, the present petition is disposed of directing the Director of Elementary Education to pass necessary order appointing the regular headmaster pursuant to the select ion process already initiated. The said exercise is directed to be completed wit hin a period of 45 days from today. Till the regular appointment is made within the aforesaid period of time, the present arrangement shall continue. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be supplied to Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel Education Department for onward transmission to the Director of Element ary Education, Assam for compliance.