The Gauhati High Court recently made an important ruling regarding the seniority of school principals. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, dismissed a writ appeal concerning the seniority claim of a principal who was initially appointed on a temporary (ad hoc) basis. The court decided that once such appointments are made permanent through a proper selection process, seniority should be calculated from the date of the initial appointment. The judges rejected the argument that the principal’s concurrent educational qualifications were invalid because they were obtained without prior approval.
Background of the Case
Naren Chandra Deka was appointed as the Principal of Paschim Barigog Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School. His appointment was challenged by Kalyan Das, who argued that he had seniority over Deka because he had been in service longer. Das claimed that although he was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis, he followed the correct selection procedures, which made him more eligible for the senior role compared to Deka, who was appointed permanently later. Deka, on the other hand, argued that Das’s degrees (B.Ed. and M.A.) were obtained without necessary approvals, making them invalid according to Assam Civil Services rules.
Arguments from Both Sides
Deka argued that seniority should be based on permanent appointments. He was officially appointed on October 30, 1998, while Das’s initial appointment on September 16, 1998, was temporary and only made permanent in 2010. Deka claimed that Das’s degrees were not legitimate because he obtained them concurrently from different universities without required permissions, which he argued was misconduct under Assam Civil Services rules.
In response, Das stated that his seniority should be recognized from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment, which was later formalized after a recommendation from the District Level Selection Board. He cited a previous court case (Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Assn. v. State of Maharashtra) to support his claim that ad hoc employees appointed through a proper selection process retain seniority from their initial appointment date. Das’s lawyer also argued that Deka’s concerns about his degrees were irrelevant since both degrees came from recognized universities.
Court’s Decision
The court concluded that Das’s ad hoc appointment was based on a formal selection process, which allowed him to maintain continuous seniority. The judges referenced the Direct Recruit case, where the Supreme Court upheld the seniority of ad hoc employees who were appointed through formal processes.
Regarding Deka’s objections about Das’s degrees, the court pointed out that previous rulings had established that while obtaining degrees without official permission may be a procedural issue, it does not automatically invalidate the qualifications if they are recognized by proper educational authorities. Therefore, the court found no merit in Deka’s argument and confirmed that Das’s degrees were valid.
Ultimately, the court ruled that Deka’s claims about seniority were based on a misunderstanding of the law, and that Das’s seniority was legitimate. The judges also noted that in cases of appeal, they are bound to respect the previous decisions made by a Single Judge unless there are clear errors or unfairness.
In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the Single Judge and dismissed Deka’s appeal, stating that it did not show any unfair or unreasonable exercise of judicial discretion.
