Relevant recruitment year for age eligibility is the year vacancy arises, not years delayed by litigation.

The petitioner, the senior-most teacher at Sarthebari Higher Secondary School (appointed 19 teacher in 1992), challenged an order dated 21.06.2025 which rejected his appointment as In-charge Principal.

Previously, the petitioner had successfully challenged two prior rejections: one where a junior was appointed, and another where he was disqualified for obtaining an MA degree without prior permission.

In the third and current instance, the Respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that he exceeded the age limit of 57 years as of 01.01.2025, citing Rule 12(3)(v) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018.

While the writ was pending, the department raised a new allegation regarding the petitioner’s absence from school to file the present litigation.

1. Whether the age bar of 57 years under Rule 12(3)(v) of the 2018 Rules applies to the year the vacancy arose or the year the appointment is processed.

2. Whether the lack of prior permission for acquiring a degree or subsequent minor disciplinary allegations can be used as a valid ground to bypass a senior teacher for an In-charge Principal position.

The court applied Rule 12(3)(v) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, which stipulates that candidates for Principal must not exceed 57 years of age on the 1st of January of the "year of recruitment".

Rule 12(5)(i) regarding the assessment of vacancies in the year preceding the recruitment.

Principle that an MA degree from a recognized university (e.g., KKHSOU) is valid for service benefits regardless of prior permission, as established in Mouchumi Saharia v. Smriti Rekha Kalita.

The court reasoned that since the vacancy for the post of Principal arose on 31.03.2023, the "year of recruitment" for Rule 12(3)(v) purposes must be 2023.

At that time, the petitioner was below the 57-year age limit; the delay in appointment was caused by the respondent's repeated and unsuccessful legal hurdles against the petitioner.

The court noted that the respondents had continuously shifted grounds—from unauthorized degrees to age limits to attendance issues—to deny the petitioner his rightful seniority-based appointment.

The court found the latest allegation regarding "unauthorized leave" to sign court affidavits to be insufficient to override senior-most status, especially given the petitioner's explanation regarding school hours and casual leave.

The court directed the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to pass an order allowing the petitioner to hold the post of In-charge Principal within three weeks, without being influenced by the pending show cause notice regarding leave.

The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner.