AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) GRIEVED by the installation of the respondent No. 5 as the in-charge Headmaster of the Gossaidubi M.E. School, Goalpara, (hereafter referred to as the school) and the perceived denial of his preferential claim to the said office, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention for redress. In terms of the impugned order dated 15.9.2006, the said respondent admittedly function as the in-charge Headmaster of the aforementioned school till date.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Munir, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the official respondents. Also heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5. The petitioner's case is that after passing Assam Madrassa Intermediate and Final Examination, he was appointed as Assistant Classical Arabic Teacher of the said school on 1.3.1974. The institution received grants in aid in the year 1994 and was provincialised in the next year. The particulars of the petitioner's academical qualifications in the writ petition are extracted herein below in tabular form for ready reference. The petitioner who claims to be serving the school in the above capacity as on date has asserted that the Assam Madrassa Intermediate, Assam Madrassa Final and the Assam Madrassa Title Examinations are equivalent to Higher Secondary, B.A. and M.A. examinations respectively in the general discipline. According to him, he is presently the senior most qualified Assistant Teacher of the school besides being one of the founder teachers thereof. For short periods in the past during the absence of the regular headmaster of the institution he had been handed over charge of the said office in recognition of his seniority and competence. As the regular incumbent in the aforementioned office Shri Mohidur Rahman was scheduled to retire on 30.9.2006, the petitioner as well as the Managing Committee of the School submitted representations on 17.9.2006 before the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara, so as to approve his assumption of charge of the post of headmaster on demission of office by the regular incumbent. The representations on one hand remained unattended and by the impugned decision, the outgoing headmaster of the school on his retirement was asked to handover charge of the office to the respondent No. 5.
(3.) THE petitioner has complained that for the non-cooperation of the respondent No. 3, 4 and 5, he could not obtain a copy of the order inspite of his best efforts. He has maintained that the respondent No. 5 had been appointed as a Graduate Assistant Teacher in the school in the year 1980 and is, therefore, junior to him by six years. THE impugned arrangement, he insists is at the instance of the respondent No. 4 who is the Head Assistant of the office of the respondent No. 3 and is also a relation of the respondent No. 5. The official respondents have not filed their counter. The respondent No. 5 in his affidavit has asserted that the petitioner being a Classical Teacher (Arabic) cannot be equated with him who is a Graduate Science Teacher and that the Classical Teachers who comprised a separate cadre were encadred with that of the Graduate Assistant Teachers only in the year 1986 vide office memorandum dated 30.8.1986 of the Education Department of the State. According to the answering respondent the petitioner's claim of seniority from the date of appointment is misconceived and, therefore, the temporary arrangement of in-charge headmastership is unassailable.;