Disciplinary Proceedings For Obtaining B.Ed Without Permission, Employee Can't Be Given Promotional Post : Gauhati HC

Background Facts

The Head Master of Gotanagar High School retired on 31st July 2024. It created a vacancy that was needed to be filled by an In-charge Head Master. The respondent had been serving as a Graduate Teacher in the same school since 1990. He was the senior-most Assistant Teacher in the seniority list.

However, the authorities noticed that respondent had obtained his B.Ed degree in 2016 without seeking prior permission from the appointing authority. It violated Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Therefore, respondent authorities ignored the claim of the respondent and instead appointed another person as In-charge Head Master. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed the writ petition.

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent. During the pendency of the proceeding, the Single Judge ruled in favour of respondent. It was held that obtaining a degree without permission may be misconduct but it does not invalidate the degree itself.

Aggrieved, the State of Assam challenged this decision before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

It was argued by the State of Assam that the respondent could not be permitted to take charge as In-charge Head Master because a disciplinary proceeding had already been initiated against him for obtaining his B.Ed degree without the mandatory prior permission from the appointing authority. It violated Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

It was further argued that allowing the respondent to hold the charge of Head Master while the disciplinary proceedings were pending could prejudice the inquiry. They argued that respondent may manipulate official records or influence witnesses. The State further argued that executive instructions or Office Memorandums cannot override statutory rules.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 was relaxed by Office Memorandums issued by the government. He contended that the OM dated 28th July 2014 permitted teachers of High Schools to pursue and acquire B.Ed degrees by giving prior intimation to the Head of the Institution and the Inspector of Schools.

It was further submitted that he had been serving continuously since 1990, therefore, his B.Ed degree could not be ignored on technical grounds. The respondent further relied upon the OM dated 22nd November 2019 issued by the Department of School Education, which validated B.Ed degrees obtained through online or distance education mode from recognized universities like IGNOU, KKHOU, and IDOL for purposes of recruitment and promotion. Thus, the B.Ed degree of the respondent could not be ignored.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the respondent had obtained his B.Ed degree in 2016 without obtaining prior permission from the appointing authority, which was a violation of Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

It was further observed by the Court that an executive instruction or Office Memorandum cannot override statutory rules. Therefore Office Memorandums cannot relax the 1965 Rules. The OM dated 28th July 2014 provided for prior intimation. But it was noted that the respondent had not even given any intimation to the Inspector of Schools. Further, no permission has been given to the respondent to pursue B.Ed. degree by the Inspector of Schools.

Relying upon the case of Jaiveer Singh and others vs. The State of Uttarakhand and others it was held that Government cannot issue executive instructions in contravention of the statutory Rules. Executive instructions can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the law does not extend but they cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions.

Further the case of Smt. Mouchumi Saharia Vs. Smriti Rekha Kalita & Ors. was relied upon wherein, it was held that if a M.A. Degree had been obtained without prior permission of the appointing authority, in violation of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965, it would be a misconduct. However, it cannot invalidate the valid degree obtained from the respective Universities.

In Ranjit Kumar Baruah Vs. the State of Assam and others, it was held that the B.Ed. degree which had been obtained without prior permission from the competent authority did not invalidate the degree.

Hence, it was observed by the Division bench that violation of any of the provisions of the 1965 Rules is a misconduct, however, the degree would be considered to be valid.

However, it was further observed that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the respondent because he obtained his B.Ed. degree without taking prior permission. It was held by the Court that whenever a departmental enquiry is pending against an employee, the result of such enquiry is kept in a sealed cover and is opened only after the selection process is concluded. A person who is not absolved of the charges cannot be promoted.

It was held that the post of In-charge Head Master (adhoc or temporary in nature) is a kind of promotion. Therefore, if an officer is not eligible for regular promotion during the pendency of a departmental proceeding, then he cannot have any right to hold an in-charge post during the pendency of a departmental proceeding.

With the aforesaid observations, the Single Judge's order by which the respondent had been allowed to hold the post of In-charge Head Master, was set aside by the Division Bench.

Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the State of Assam was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The State Of Assam And Ors. Vs. Madhab Chandra Kalita And Anr.

Case No. : WA/293/2025

Counsel for the Appellant : N.J. Khataniar, GA, Assam

Counsel for the Respondents : B. Purkayastha, Adv.