High Court Holds B.Ed. Degree Not Invalidated by Lack of Prior Permission or Subsequent NCTE Requirement; Promotion Order Set Aside

A bench of Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair heard a writ petition challenging the December 9, 2019 order of the Director of Secondary Education promoting an Assistant Teacher to Headmaster of Dumunichowki Girls’ High School, Darrang. The petition raised questions on validity of the petitioner’s B.Ed. degree (purportedly obtained without prior departmental permission and from a college not then recognised by the NCTE) and on inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the promoted teacher.

The High Court held that the petitioner’s B.Ed. degree could not be invalidated on the ground that he pursued the course without prior departmental permission and that the later emergence of NCTE recognition requirements could not be applied retrospectively to render a degree invalid. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to consideration for promotion and that the December 9, 2019 promotion order was unsustainable. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 mandates that prior permission shall be obtained by a government employee for prosecuting any course of study. The violation of Section 13 would amount to a misconduct for which the employer may draw a disciplinary proceeding against the government employee. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 cannot be invoked to invalidate any degree acquired by a government employee, the course of study for which the government employee had prosecuted without previous permission from the authorities.” The Court also noted that “a Degree valid at its initiation cannot be held to have become invalid on grounds arising after the petitioner had acquired his B.Ed. Degree” and recorded that the petitioner had been “illegally deprived of a fair consideration” for promotion.

Background The petitioner, Shri Karam Ali, was appointed an Assistant Teacher in Dumunichowki Girls’ High School in 1988 and was authorised the graduate scale of pay with effect from December 1, 1993. He completed a B.Ed. course and received a degree from Gauhati University in 1995. On a vacancy for Headmaster arising w.e.f. January 31, 2018, the petitioner was allowed to hold charge pending selection. After the State Selection Board recommended another candidate, respondent No.4 was promoted by order dated December 9, 2019. The petitioner challenged that order before the Gauhati High Court.

Respondents contended that the petitioner had pursued the B.Ed. without departmental permission and that the Sipajhar B.Ed. College lacked NCTE recognition at the relevant time, rendering the degree invalid and the petitioner ineligible under Rule 12 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003. The petitioner produced an order dated October 4, 1994 granting permission to pursue the course in the evening section and relied on the absence of any cancellation of his university degree. The Court noted earlier interim orders maintaining status quo which permitted the petitioner to continue officiating as Headmaster until his retirement on January 31, 2023.

Applying precedent and statutory interpretation, the Court held that absence of prior permission was at most a misconduct under the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and did not, by itself, invalidate a university degree. The Court further observed that the NCTE Act came into force only on July 1, 1995, and the statutory Council was constituted thereafter, so a retrospective requirement of NCTE recognition could not be applied to a course pursued before that regime was in place. On inter-se seniority, the Court applied Rule 24(5) of the 2003 Rules and found the petitioner senior by date of birth where graduate scale was granted to both incumbents on the same date.

The Court quashed the December 9, 2019 promotion order. It directed the State Selection Board or competent authority to reconsider the cases of the petitioner and respondent No.4 strictly in accordance with the Court’s conclusions. If the petitioner was found entitled, the Director of Secondary Education was to promote him effective December 9, 2019 and pay arrears of salary to him up to his date of superannuation (January 31, 2023). The Court ordered computation and release of arrears within three months and revision of pensionary benefits within four months. The writ petition stood disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: WP(C) No.9361 of 2019 (GAHC010307992019) Case Title: Shri Karam Ali v. The State of Assam & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.P. Dutta, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. U. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department (for Respondents 1–3); Mr. M. Nath, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.P. Bora, Advocate (for Respondent No.4); Mr. P.J. Phukan, Standing Counsel, Gauhati University (for Respondent No.5)