Govt Employee's Failure To Obtain Prior Permission For Higher Studies Is Misconduct, But Not Ground To Invalidate Degree: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that while a government employee's failure to obtain prior permission to pursue higher studies amounts to misconduct under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965, it cannot be a ground to invalidate a degree obtained from a recognised university.
Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed:
“The violation of Rule 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 from a recognized institution, on the ground that it was so pursued without previous permission from the authorities.”
The Court made the observation while allowing two writ petitions filed by Mallika Devi, who challenged a January 27, 2023 order of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, entrusting Subhalakshmi Barooah, an Assistant Teacher at T.C. Government Girls' H.S. & M.P. School, Guwahati, with the charge of the post of Principal. Devi also challenged a subsequent hearing report prepared by the Deputy Director of Secondary Education rejecting her claim to the post.
Devi was initially appointed as a Subject Teacher in Assamese in 1995 and was regularised in 2001. In the State-wise draft gradation list of Post Graduate Teachers published in 2021, her name appeared at serial number 68, whereas Barooah was placed at serial number 80.
Following the retirement of the school's Principal on January 31, 2023, Devi claimed that, being the senior-most Post Graduate Teacher possessing the requisite qualifications, she ought to have been entrusted with the charge of the vacant post. However, the Director of Secondary Education held that Barooah alone had obtained her B.Ed. degree after being deputed by the department. Since Devi and other senior teachers had pursued the B.Ed. course without prior departmental permission, the authorities invoked Rule 13 of the 1965 Rules to hold them ineligible for the post.
Devi argued that her B.Ed. degree had been obtained from a recognised institution and could not be invalidated merely because she had not secured prior permission from the department. She further contended that, even assuming there had been a violation of Rule 13, the consequence could only be disciplinary action and not denial of service benefits flowing from the qualification.
The State, on the other hand, argued that because the petitioner had admittedly pursued the B.Ed. course without prior permission, the qualification could not be recognised for the purpose of granting service benefits, rendering her ineligible to hold the post of Principal even on an in-charge basis.
Examining Rule 13, the Court noted that government employees are prohibited from joining or attending educational institutions or appearing in examinations conducted by recognised universities without obtaining prior permission from the appointing authority.
However, the Court clarified that Rule 13 merely prescribes a condition of service and that its violation constitutes misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. It held that the rule cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise valid degree obtained from a recognised university.
Relying on its earlier decisions in Tankeswar Nath v. State of Assam and Mouchumi Saharia v. Smriti Rekha Kalita, the Court observed that a degree granted by a recognised university is governed by the University Grants Commission Act and cannot be rendered invalid merely because departmental permission had not been obtained.
The Court further noted that no departmental proceedings had been initiated against Devi as on January 27, 2023 for the alleged violation of Rule 13.
Holding that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment as Principal, the Court observed, “Accordingly, a legal right is found to have accrued to the petitioner to hold the charge of the post of Principal of T.C. Government Girls' H.S. & M.P. School, Guwahati.”
Consequently, the Court set aside both the January 27, 2023 order appointing Barooah as in-charge Principal and the hearing report rejecting Devi's claim.
“Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner has a legal right to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the school in question, till the same is so filled up on regular basis,” the Court held.
The matter was remanded to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, with a direction to issue appropriate orders allowing the petitioner to hold charge of the post of Principal within fifteen days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
Case Name: Mallika Devi v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 99
Case No.: WP(C) No. 234/2026 (along with WP(C) No. 3643/2025)