Serving teachers need no prior permission for distance education from institutions recognised under Schedule III.

The petitioner, a teacher at Sarvajanin HS Valika Vidyalaya, Tinsukia, challenged the Director of Secondary Education’s order dated 21.06.2024, by which respondent No. 4 was permitted to act as In-charge Principal instead of the petitioner.

Although the petitioner was senior-most among the eligible incumbents, her claim was rejected on the ground that she had obtained an M.A. degree in 2018 while in service without prior permission under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

The petitioner had applied for permission on 28.06.2016, but no prior permission was obtained.

It was admitted that the M.A. degree had been obtained through distance mode from Dibrugarh University.

During the proceedings, the Court stayed respondent No. 4’s appointment as In-charge Principal.

Whether obtaining an M.A. degree through distance mode from Dibrugarh University without prior permission constituted misconduct or disqualification under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965

Whether the petitioner, being the senior-most eligible incumbent, was entitled to have her claim considered for appointment as In-charge Principal after rejection of her claim on the basis of the alleged lack of prior permission

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, which generally requires permission for a government servant to pursue studies where such studies may cause dislocation of official work or impede the efficient discharge of duties.

It also relied on the Assam Secondary Education Rules, 2018, particularly Schedule III, and the Government notifications/O.Ms. recognising specified institutions and distance-learning programmes for serving teachers.

Following Jayanta Neog & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2406, the Court held that prior permission under Rule 13 is not required for teachers pursuing higher studies through distance mode from recognised institutions, including IDOL, Gauhati University and Dibrugarh University, and that such study cannot be treated as misconduct under Rule 13.

The Court found that the petitioner’s M.A. degree was obtained through distance mode from Dibrugarh University, an institution covered by the legal principles stated in Jayanta Neog.

Since distance learning did not require the petitioner to remain absent from regular teaching duties, the rationale underlying Rule 13—preventing dislocation of government service—was not attracted.

The absence of prior permission therefore could not lawfully be treated as misconduct or as a disqualification for holding the post of In-charge Principal.

The State also fairly conceded that the issue was covered by Jayanta Neog and that the petitioner was the senior-most eligible incumbent.

Consequently, the impugned order was based on an unsustainable ground and the petitioner’s claim required fresh verification and consideration in accordance with law.

The Court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 21.06.2024.

The respondent authorities were directed to verify the petitioner’s claim and consider her for appointment as In-charge Principal of Sarvajanin HS Valika Vidyalaya, Tinsukia, in accordance with law.

They were further directed to take consequential steps forthwith, preferably within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, as the school was functioning without a Principal.

The interim order staying respondent No. 4’s appointment was directed to merge with the final order.