Failure to obtain prior study permission may constitute misconduct but cannot invalidate a degree from a recognized institution.

The petitioner, a Post Graduate Teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School, was initially appointed as a Subject Teacher in Assamese under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951, and was subsequently appointed on a regular basis pursuant to an Assam Public Service Commission recommendation.

In the State-wise Draft Gradation List of Post Graduate Teachers, she was placed at serial no. 68, senior to respondent no. 5, who was placed at serial no. 80.

After the Principal of T.C. Government Girls’ H.S. & M.P. School, Guwahati, retired with effect from 31 January 2023, the petitioner claimed that, being the senior-most qualified teacher in the school, she should be entrusted with the Principal’s charge.

Instead, by order dated 27 January 2023, the Director of Secondary Education entrusted respondent no. 5 with the charge, observing that respondent no. 5 alone had obtained her B.Ed. degree with departmental permission; the petitioner and other senior teachers were treated as ineligible under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965, for not producing prior permission to pursue the B.Ed. course.

The petitioner challenged that order in WP(C) No. 3643/2025. During its pendency, a departmental hearing was conducted on 4 June 2025, and the petitioner’s claim was rejected in a hearing report, which she separately challenged in WP(C) No. 234/2026.

Both writ petitions were heard together.

1. Whether the petitioner’s B.Ed. degree, obtained from a recognised university without prior departmental permission, could be treated as invalid or non-reckonable for determining her eligibility to hold the charge of Principal under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

2. Whether the petitioner, being senior to respondent no. 5 and possessing the requisite qualifications, had a legal right to be entrusted with the charge of Principal of T.C. Government Girls’ H.S. & M.P. School, Guwahati, until regular appointment to the post.

3. Whether the order dated 27 January 2023 and the subsequent hearing report dated 4 June 2025 were legally sustainable.

Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965 requires a Government servant to obtain prior permission from the appointing authority before joining or attending an educational institution or appearing for an examination of a recognised Board or University.

Breach of Rule 13 may constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings, but it does not invalidate an otherwise valid degree obtained from a recognised institution.

Relying on Tankeswar Nath v. State of Assam & Others, which followed Smt. Mouchumi Saharia v. Smriti Rekha Kalita & 3 Others, the Court held that the validity of a university degree is governed by the applicable university and statutory framework, including Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and cannot be impliedly annulled by denying service benefits solely for want of prior departmental permission.

Under the applicable recruitment provisions, including Rule 12(3) of the relevant 2018 Rules, the qualified senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre is to be considered for appointment or temporary entrustment of the Principal’s charge.

The Court found that the petitioner was senior to respondent no. 5 both in the cadre and in the concerned school, and that she possessed the requisite B.Ed. qualification.

Although the petitioner may have violated Rule 13 by pursuing the B.Ed. course without prior permission, that violation could at most expose her to disciplinary proceedings; it could not invalidate or render unusable the degree granted by a recognised university.

Since no departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner as of 27 January 2023, the authorities could not rely on the alleged Rule 13 violation to disregard her qualification and bypass her seniority.

Treating her B.Ed. degree as non-reckonable effectively amounted to an impermissible invalidation of the degree, contrary to the principle laid down in Tankeswar Nath.

Consequently, the order appointing respondent no. 5 to hold charge and the subsequent hearing report were unsustainable.

The order dated 27 January 2023 entrusting respondent no. 5 with the Principal’s charge and the hearing report dated 4 June 2025 were set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, with a direction to issue appropriate orders permitting the petitioner to hold charge within 15 days from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

Both writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.