In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has overturned a Single Judge’s order that allowed a senior teacher to hold the post of In-Charge Head Master while a departmental inquiry against him was still pending.
The Division Bench made it clear that although a degree obtained without prior permission may remain valid, an employee facing disciplinary proceedings cannot claim a promotional post - even if it is temporary or ad hoc.
The judgment was delivered on February 5, 2026, in a writ appeal filed by the State of Assam.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The dispute began after the retirement of the Head Master of Gotanagar High School on July 31, 2024. The senior-most Assistant Teacher, Madhab Chandra Kalita, expected to be given charge as In-Charge Head Master.
However, the authorities overlooked his name. The reason? He had obtained his B.Ed degree in 2016 without taking prior permission from the appointing authority, as required under Rule 13 of the Assam Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
Instead, another teacher was appointed to hold the charge. Aggrieved, Kalita approached the High Court through a writ petition.
The Single Judge ruled in his favour. Relying on earlier decisions, the court observed that obtaining a degree without prior permission may amount to misconduct but does not invalidate the degree itself. Since Kalita was the senior-most and otherwise qualified, the Single Judge allowed him to hold the post.
The State then filed the present appeal.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
State’s Argument Before the Court
Appearing for the State, counsel argued that a departmental proceeding had already been initiated against Kalita for violating Rule 13. A memorandum of charge had been issued, and the teacher had submitted his written defence.
The State contended that allowing him to hold the charge of Head Master during the pendency of the inquiry could prejudice the process.
“The records may be manipulated, and witnesses may be influenced,” the State’s counsel submitted.
It was also argued that executive instructions or Office Memorandums cannot override statutory rules. Since prior permission was mandatory under the Rules, mere intimation would not suffice.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench carefully examined the earlier rulings relied upon by the Single Judge. The court noted that previous decisions had indeed clarified that obtaining a degree without permission amounts to misconduct but does not invalidate the academic qualification.
However, the Bench drew a distinction.
The judges observed that while the B.Ed degree remains valid, the issue before them was different - whether a person facing disciplinary proceedings can be allowed to hold a higher administrative post.
The court referred to settled legal principles that executive instructions cannot run contrary to statutory rules.
“The Government cannot issue executive instructions in contravention of statutory Rules,” the Bench noted, referring to Supreme Court precedents .
More importantly, the court stressed that when a departmental inquiry is pending, promotions are usually kept in sealed cover. A delinquent officer cannot claim elevation until exonerated.
The judges observed: “A person who is not exonerated of the charge in a departmental enquiry cannot be promoted.”
Although the post of In-Charge Head Master was temporary, the Bench treated it as a form of promotion for administrative purposes.
“It would not be proper for a person undergoing a departmental proceeding to be allowed to hold the post of In-charge Head Master,” the court held.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
Decision of the Court
After considering the arguments and the legal position, the Division Bench disagreed with the Single Judge’s order.
The court held that since a departmental proceeding was pending against the teacher, he could not claim the right to hold the post of In-Charge Head Master.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated February 27, 2025, was set aside.
The writ appeal filed by the State of Assam was allowed.
Case Title: The State of Assam & Ors. vs. Madhab Chandra Kalita & Anr.
Case No.: WA/293/2025
Decision Date: 05 February 2026
