Gauhati High Court
Raju Chakraborty And 58 Ors vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 4 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GAU 291
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Chief Justice, Soumitra Saikia
Page No. 1
GAHC010254802019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 8068/2019
1:RAJU CHAKRABORTY AND 58 ORS.
SON OF LATE SATYESH CHKRABORTY,
SHYAMA PRASAD ROAD, WARD NO. 24,
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710,
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.
2: MIHIR KANTI NATH
SON OF LATE PRASSANNA KUMAR NATH, J
RAILWAY COLONY
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
3: AMIT KUMAR DUTTA
SON OF LATE SITANGSHU KUMAR DUTTA
SHYAMA PRASAD ROAD
WARD NO. 24
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
4: AZIR UDDIN
SON OF LATE ABDUR RAHMAN
VILLAGE ALAMKHANI
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
5: ADUL BASIT
SON OF LATE ABDUL MANNAN
Page No. 2
VILLAGE AND P.O. BRHAMANSHANAN-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
6: ANAMIKA DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE ABHAY CHARAN DAS CHOUDHURY
NILMONI ROAD
KARIMGANJ TOWN
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
7: SUPDITA GANGULY DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE SUKESH CHANDRA DAS
LAXMICHARAN ROAD
KARIMGANJ TOWN
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
8: ADUL BASIT
SON OF LATE MOYEEN UDDIN
VILLAGE SOUTH LAFASAIL
P.O. LAKSHMI BAZAR-788709
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
9: TAJ UDDIN
SON OF LATE ABDUL KHALIQUE
VILLAGE BAGAN
P.O. KATHALI BAZAR-788725
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
10: SUDIP SAHA
SON OF LATE PURNA CHANDRA SAHA
DASPATTY
KARIMGANJ TOWN
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
Page No. 3
11: PABAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
SON OF LATE SUDHIR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY
AZAD SAGAR ROAD
KARIMGANJ TOWN
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
12: JUGAL KISHORE DUTTA
C/O OF LATE DHRUBA DUTTA
STATION ROAD
NEAR MASZID
KARIMGANJ TOWN
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
13: MOHITOSH DAS
SON OF LATE MIHIR KUMAR DAS
GACH KALIBARI ROAD
KARIMGANJ TOWN
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
14: SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL
SON OF LATE SUSHIL CHANDRA PAUL
VILLAGE AND P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
15: DEEPA NAG DEB PURKAYASTHA
VILLAGE NAIRGRAM
WARD NO. 8
POST OFFICE NAIRGRAM-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
16: DWIJENDRA CHANDRA DAS
SON OF LATE RABINDRA CHANDRA DAS
INDIRA COLONY (RAILWAY SITE)
SUBHASH NAGAR
Page No. 4
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
17: JOYPATI BANIK
WIFE OF DEBASHISH CHANDRA DEY
SUBHASH SARANI
SILCHAR ROAD
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788713
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
18: JAYANTA BHATTACHARJEE
SON OF LATE JYOTIRMOY BHATTACHARJEE
JANGLA KALIBARI ROAD
P.O. BADARPURGHAT-788803
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
19: RUMI BHATTACHARJEE
DAUGHTER OF LATE RABINDRA NATH SHARMA
WIFE OF JOYDEB BHATTACHARJEE
P.O. BADARPURGHAT-788803
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
20: ABDUL AHAD KHAN
SON OF LATE KANIR ALI KHAN
VILLAGE MIRADIGIRPAR
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
21: SANJU DUTTA
SON OF LATE AMULAYA DUTTA
ROY NAGAR
KARIMGANJ TOWN
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
22: AMBAR BHATTACHARJEE
Page No. 5
SON OF LATE AMARENDRA BHATTACHARJEE
RED CROSS ROAD
WARD NO. 12
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
23: APARNA NATH
DAUGHTER OF LATE ANANDA MOHON NATH
VILLAGE AMARKHAL
P.O. ANIPUR-
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
24: SANJEEB DAS
VILLAGE NAYAGRAM
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
25: KALYAN KUMAR DEY
SON OF LATE KANAILAL DEY
VILLAGE CHARAKURI
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
26: ANINDITA ROY
DAUGHTER OF SRI ARABINDA ROY
ROY NAGAR
KARIMGANJ TOWN
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
27: SOUMEN ROY
SON OF SRI JALODISH ROY
SETTLEMENT ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788712
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
Page No. 6
28: SIMA DEB
DAUGHTER OF LATE JYOISH DEB
VILLAGE AND P.O. BARAIGAM- 788723
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
29: PRODYUT KUMAR DEY
SON OF LATE PRASANTA KUMAR DEY
LAXSHIM BAZAR ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
30: ARPITA DUTTA CHOUDHURY @ ARPITA DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE RABINDRA KUMAR DAS
BIRASHREE SARADA PALLY
MALIPARA
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
31: SABITA PAUL
DAUGHTER OF LATE RAKESH CHANDRA PAUL
VILLAGE RAMKRISHNA NAGAR
P.O. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR-
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
32: KAKALI DEY
DAUGHTER OF SRI BIRESWAR CHOUDHURY
JUM BASTI M.E.SCHOOL ROAD
P.O. BADARPUR-
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
33: JYOTISWAR NARAYAN SHARMA
SON OF LATE RAMENDRA NARAYAN SHARMA
CHARBAZAR
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
Page No. 7
34: TAPASHI DEB (DHAR)
DAUGHTER OF LATE TAPADIR RANJAN DEB
R.C. DAS ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
35: ANUPA PAUL
C/O LATE MAKHAN LAL PAUL
RAMKRISHNA MISSION ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
36: MAZIR UDDIN
SON OF ABDUS SATTAR
VILLAGE DURLAVPUR
P.O.KANAIBAZAR-788724
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
37: MOHITOSH DAS
SON OF LATE MIHIR KUMAR DAS
LONGAI ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
38: SELIM UDDIN
SON OF USTAR ALI
VILLAGE AND P.O. ERQALIGOOL-788724
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
39: ABDUL KHALIQUE
SON OF ABDUL GOFUR
VILLAGE DARARPAR
P.O. DURGANAGAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
40: SWARUP DAS
Page No. 8
SON OF BIRENDRA CHANDRA DAS
VILLAGE BIDYANAGAR
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
41: AJITA NATH
DAUGHTER OF SATYENDRA CHANDRA NATH
VILLAGE HALGHAT
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
42: CHHAD UDDIN
SON OF LATE JUNAB ALI
VILLAGE AND P.O. PECHALA-788723
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
43: MONTEE PURKAYASTHA
DAUGHTER OF BANAMALI PURKAYASTHA
R.K. MISSION ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
44: ANUBHA DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE NARENDRA CHANDARA DAS
NARIKHALI
P.O. LAKSHMIBAZAR-788709
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
45: DWIJENDRA CHANDRA NATH
SON OF LATE RABINDRA CHANDRA DAS
INDHIRA COLONY
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
46: MITALI PAUL
DAUGHTER OF LATE AMAL KANTI PAUL
Page No. 9
LONGAI TEA ESTATE
P.O. CHANDKHIRA-788725
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
47: MADHABI DEBNATH
DAUGHTER OF DAYAMOY DEBNATH
VILLAGE MARUGAON
P.O. TIHEM-788725
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
48: MOUSAMI BANIK
DAUGHTER OF MONORANJAN BANIK
BIPIN PAUL ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ--788711
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
49: BISHWESWAR NATH
SON OF LATE BIPIN CHANDRA NATH
VILLAGE KETKONA
P.O. SRIGOURI BBAZAR-788719
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
50: KULESH CHANDRA NATH
SON OF SATYENDRA CHANDRA NATH
VILLAGE SURIGRAM
P.O. AYLABARI-788713
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
51: SHYAMAL BHATTACHARJEE
SON OF SHYMAPADA BHATTACHARJEE
POST OFFICE RAMKRISHNA NAGAR-788166
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
52: ARDHENDU DEB
SON OF LATE ADHAR CHANDRA DEB
POST OFFICE VETERBOND-788736
Page No. 10
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
53: AMTI KUMAR DAS
SON OF LATE MOHIT KUMAR DAS
LAKSHMICHARAN ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ--788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
54: SAUMEN CHAKRABORTY
SON OF LATE SATYENDRA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
MAIN ROAD
OPPOSITE R.D. GIRLS COLLEGE
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ- 788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
55: RAMKRISHNA PAUL
SON OF LATE PRANBALLAB PAUL
SHIBBARI ROAD
WARD NO. 16
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ--788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
56: SABYASACHI CHAKRABORTY
SON OF LATE SUDHEN CHAKRABORTY
AZAD SAGAR ROAD
P.O. SETTLEMENT ROAD -788712
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
57: SIJU DAS
SON OF JOGADISH DAS
VILLAGE SADARASHI
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788709
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
58: MRINAL KANTI BHATTACHARJEE
SON OF LATE JNANENDRA BHATTACHARJEE
Page No. 11
VILLAGE CHERAGIBAZAR
P.O. CHERAGI-788737
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
59: SUBHASISH PAUL
SON OF GOURANGA PAUL
BANAMALI ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSA
VERSUS
1:STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
POST OFFICE GUWAHATI- 781006
DISTRICT KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE MEMBER SECRETARY
EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS ELIGIBILITY
TEST (TET)
GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
P.O. GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
P.O. GUWAHATI-7810019
ASSAM
5:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
Page No. 12
SARVA SIKHA ABHIYAN
(SSA)
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
P.O. GUWAHATI-781019
ASSAM.
6:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCREENING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR
SARVA SIKHA ABHIYAN
(SSA)
KARIMGANJ DISTRICT)
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DHAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU
Linked Case : WP(C) 7387/2017
1:SATYAJYOTI NATH and 45 ORS.
S/O- LATE SUKHENDRA CHANDRA NATH
R/O- VILL AND P.O- NARSINGPUR
P.S- SONAI
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788115
2: KAMALESH PAUL
S/O- LATE KHIRODE CH PAUL
H NO. 20
HRIDAY SARANI
SONAI ROAD
P.O- LINK ROAD
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788006
3: AMARNATH PRAJAPATI
S/O- LAXMI NARAYAN PRAJAPATI
Page No. 13
R/O- VILL- CHINCOORIE T.E
P.O- CHINCOORIE
P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
4: A. BABATOMBI SINGHA
S/O- LATE A GOUR HARI SINGHA
R/O- VILL- KAZIDAHAR PT-III
P.O- KAZIDAHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788115
5: APARNA NATH
D/O- PARIMAL CHANDRA NATH
R/O- VILL- BERABAK PAT-III
P.O- NAGDIRGRAM
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
6: MONGALA NATH
D/O- HARENDRA NATH
R/O- VILL AND P.O- NARSINGPUR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788115
7: BISSHWAMAY NATH
S/O- LATE NARESH CHANDRA NATH
R/O- VILL- NARSINGPUR PT-I
P.O- NARSINGPUR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788115
8: KANAUJ SHOME
S/O- LATE KISHOLOY SHOME
R/O- COLLEGE ROAD
P.O- G C COLLEGE ROAD SUB P.O
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788004
9: SAFIQUE UDDIN CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE ABDUL BARI CHOUDHURY
VILL- BHATISANGJURAI
P.O- KALIBARI BAZAR
Page No. 14
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788150
10: ABDUS SALAM BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE SOFAR ALI BARBHUIYA
VILL- SAYEDBOND PART-I
P.O- KALIBARI BAZAR
P.S- ALGAPUR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788150
11: ABDUL KALAM SHAH
S/O- LATE ABDUS SAMAD SHAH
VILL- SAYEDBOND PART-I
P.O- KALIBARI BAZAR
P.S- ALGAPUR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788150
12: SHAMSUL HUDA MAZARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE ABDUR RAQUIB MAZARBHUIYA
R/O- HAILAKANDI TOWN
WARD NO. XI
P.O- RATANPUR ROAD
P.S- HAILAKANDI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788155
13: ALTAF HUSSAIN LASKAR
S/O- LATE ABDUR RAHIM LASKAR
R/O- VILL MOHANPUR PT-I
P.O- ALGAPUR PT-V
P.S- ALGAPUR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
PIN- 788150
14: TAPAN KUMAR SINGHA
S/O- CHANDRA KUMAR SINGHA
VILL- NITYANANDAPUR PT-II
P.O- NITYANDAPURAN
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788168
Page No. 15
15: ABHIJIT NATH
S/O- HIRENDRA CHANDRA NATH
R/O- COLLEGE ROAD
WARD NO. 13
P.O AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788151
16: ABDUL MANNAN CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE AMIR ALI CHOUDHURY
R/O- VILL- BOALIPAR PT-III
P.O- BOALIPAR BAZAR
P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788155
17: SALEH AHMED BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILL NARAINPUR PT-I
P.O- CHANDPUR WEST
P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788152
18: SAHNAZ AKHTAR LASKAR
D/O- ABDUL MOMIT LASKAR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
19: ASROF UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O- SOKAT ALI BARBHUIYA
VILL- CHANDIPUR PART-III
P.O- KALIBARI BAZAR
P.S- ALGAPUR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788150
20: FAKAR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE JAMIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
VILL- KAPNARPAR
P.O- KALIBARI BAZAR
P.S- ALGAPUR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788150
21: NOOR UDDIN LASKAR
S/O- SOFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR
Page No. 16
R/O- VILL MOHANPUR PT-IV
P.O- MOHANPUR
P.S- ALGAPUR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
22: SWARNALI DHAR
S/O- SIDDHESWAR NATH
PREMOLATA KUTHIR
2ND LINK ROAD MAIN
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788006
23: RAJOWAN HUSSAIN MAZUMDER
S/O- ISKANDAR ALI MAZUMDER
VILL BOWARGHAT PART-II
P.O- BOWARGHAT BAZAR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
24: SALE AHMED CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE IDRIS ALI CHOUDHURY
VILL- ALOICHERRA PT-IV
P.O- KARICHERRA
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788165
25: TAPASI DEY
D/O- SHYAMAPADA DEY
H NO.9
CO-OPERATIVE LANE
KANAKPUR PART-II
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788005
26: SAFIQUE UDDIN MAZUMDER
S/O- ASKANDAR ALI MAZUMDER
VILL AND P.O- UTTARKRISHNAPUR PT-II
P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
27: DILWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR
Page No. 17
S/O- LATE ATAUR RAHMAN LASKAR
VILL- SAHABAD PART-II
P.O- SAHABAD
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788163
28: HUSSAIN AHAMED BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE MAJARAF ALI BARBHUIYA
VILL- BAHADURPUR PART-I
P.O- RANGAUTI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788155
29: SUMIT ACHARJEE
S/O- LATE SUNIL CHANDRA ACHARJEE
VILL- JOYPUR PART-I
P.O- JOYPUR RAJABAZAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788107
30: CH. SANAMANI SINGHA
S/O- CHANDRA SEKHAR SINGHA
VILL- MADHOBPUR RAJYESWARPUR PT-VIII
P.O- MADARIPAR
P.S- LALA
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788163
31: SANTA KUMAR SINHA
S/O- LATE GOKUL CHAND SINHA
VILL- NITYANANDAPUR PART-I
P.O- NITYANANDAPUR
P.S- LALA
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788168
32: L. SUNIL KUMAR SINGHA
S/O- L ABIR SINGHA
VILL- RAJYESWARPUR
P.O- RAJYESWARPUR
P.S- LALA
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
Page No. 18
PIN- 788164
33: NAZIR HUSSAIN TAPADAR
S/O- LATE MUSOBBIR ALI TAPADAR
VILL- BHABANIPUR
P.O- CHANDRAPUR PART-II
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
34: A. IBOTOMBI SINGHA
S/O- LATE KOWMACHA SINGHA
VILL- LABOCPAR PART-IV
P.O- PAILAPOOL
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788098
35: SAHEED AHMED LASKAR
S/O- AKADDAS ALI LASKAR
VILL- ALGAPUR PART-II
P.O- ALGAPUR EAST
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788101
36: SALIM AHMED MAZUMDER
S/O- KHOLILUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER
VILL- ALGAPUR EAST
P.O- ALGAPUR EAST
P.S- SILCHAR SADAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788101
37: H. BISWAJIT SINGHA
S/O- LATE NONI GOPAL SINGHA
VILL- SIBPUR PART-II
P.O- KAPTANPUR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788119
38: KAMRUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY
S/O- MOTIUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY
VILL- DHANIPUR
P.O- SARBANANDAPUR
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
Page No. 19
39: FAIJUL HOQUE MAZUMDER
S/O- LATE KUTUB ALI MAZUMDER
R/O- VILL- BOWARGHAT PT-I
P.O- BOWARGHAT
DIST- HAILAKANDI
PIN- 788164
40: LITU RANI PAUL
D/O- LATE RANADHIR PAUL
R/O- VILL- CHAMPAK NAGAR
P.O- SRIPUR
DIST- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788166
41: SHUHRAB HUSSAIN MAZUMDER
S/O- ABDUL KHALIQUE MAZUMDER
R/O- VILL BERENGA PT-I
P.O- BERENGA
P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
42: PIJUSH KANTI NATH
S/O- JATINDRA CHANDRA NATH
R/O- VILL JARAILTALA
P.O- JARAILTALA BAZAR
P.S- BARKHOLA
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
43: MANIR UDDIN LASKAR
S/O- LATE RASHID ALI LASKAR
R/O- VILL- KACHUDARAM PT-II
P.O- KACHUDARAM
P.S- KACHUDARAM
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
44: FAKAR UDDIN LASKAR
S/O- LATE MOBAT ALI LASKAR
R/O- VILL- PURBO SUNAPUR
P.O- RATANPUR
P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
45: Y. SURENDRA SINGHA
Page No. 20
S/O- LATE Y MONI SINGHA
R/O- VILL- DHANEHARI PART-II LAMARGRAM
P.O- KAZIDAHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788115
46: AMIT GOSWAMI
S/O- ABANI KUMAR GOSWAMI
R/O- ROYGARH
P.O- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
2:THE MEMBER SECRETARY
EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY TEACHER'S ELIGIBILITY
TESTTET
GOVT OF ASSAM
ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONKAHILIPARA
GHY- 19
3:THE DIRECTOR
OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY- 19
4:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY- 19
5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCREENING COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR
SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN
CACHAR
SILCHAR
Page No. 21
DIST- CACHAR
PIN- 788001
6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
CACHAR
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
PIN- 788001
7:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCREENING COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR
SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN
HAILAKANDI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
PIN- 788151
8:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
HAILAKANDI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
PIN- 788151
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRM J QUADIR
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : WP(C) 5572/2017
1:RAJU CHAKRABORTY and 58 ORS
S/O LT. SATYESH CHAKRABORTY SHAYAMAPRASAD ROAD
WARD NO. 24
P.O. AND DIST.KARIMGANJ
788710
ASSAM
2: SHRI MIHIR KANTI NATH
RAILWAY COLONY P.O. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
3: SHRI AMIT KUMAR DUTTA
S/O LT. SITANGSHU KUMAR DUTTA
SHYAMPRASAD ROAD
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
Page No. 22
4: MD. AZIR UDDIN
S/O LT. ABDUR RAHMAN VILL- ALAMKHANI
P.O. NILAMBAZAR
-788722
DIST.KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
5: MD. ABDUL BASIT
S/O LT. ABDUL MANNAN VILL and P.O. BRAHMANSASHAN-788722
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
6: SMTI. ANAMIKA DAS
D/O LT. ABHAY CHARAN DAS CHOUDHURY NILMONI ROAD
KARIMGANJ
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
788710
7: SMTI. SUDIPTA GANGULI DAS
D/O LT. SUKESH CHANDRA DAS LAXHMICHARAN ROAD
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ- 788710
ASSAM
8: MD. ABDUL BACHIT
S/O MOYEN UDDIN VILL- SOUTH LAFASHAIL
P.O. LAKSHMI BAZAR
788709
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
9: MD. TAJ UDDIN
S/O ABDUL KHALIQUE VILL- BAGHAN
P.O. KATHALI BAZAR- 788725
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
10: SHRI SUDIP SAHA
S/O LT. PURNA CHANDRA SAHA DASPATTY
KARIMGANJ
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ- 788710.
11: SHRI PABAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
S/O SUDHIR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY
AZAD SAGAR ROAD
KARIMGANJ P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
12: SHRI JUGAL KISHORE DUTTA
Page No. 23
C/O DHRUBA DUTTA STATION ROAD
NEAR MASJID
P.O. DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
13: SHRI MOHITOSH DAS
S/OLT. MIHIR KUMAR DAS VILL- GACHKALIBARI ROAD
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ- 788710
ASSAM
14: SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR PAUL
S/O SUSHIL CHANDRA PAUL VILL and P.O. NILAMBAZAR DIST.
KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
15: SMTI DEEPA NAG DEB PURKAYASTHA
VILLAGE NAIRGRAM
WARD NO. 8
P.O. NAIRGRAM
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
16: SHRI DWIJENDRA CHANDRA DAS
SON OF LATE RABINDRA CHANDRA DAS
INDIRA COLONY RAILWAY SITE SUBASH NAGAR
KARIMGANJ
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
17: SMTI JOYPATI BANIK
WIFE OF DEBASHISH CHANDRA DEY
P.O. SUBHASH SARANI
SILCHAR ROAD
788713. DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
18: SHRI JAYANTA BHATTACHARJEE
SON OF LATE JYOTIRMOY BHATTACHARJEE
JANGLA KALIBARI ROAD
POST OFFCE BADARPUR GHAT
788803
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
19: SMTI RUMI BHATTACHARJEE
DAUGHTER OF LATE RABINDRANATH SHARMA
Page No. 24
WIFE OF SRI JOYDEB BHATTACHAJEE
BADARPUR GHAT
788803
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
20: MD. ABDUL AHAD KHAN
SON OF LATE KANIR ALI KHAN
VILLAGE MIRADIGIRPAR
P.O. NILAMBAZAR
788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
21: SHRI SANJU DUTTA
SON OF LATE AMULAYA DUTTA
ROY NAGAR
KARIMGANJ
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
22: SHRI AMBAR BHATTACHARJEE
SON OF LATE AMARENDRA BHATTACHARJEE
RED CROSS ROAD
WARD NO. 12
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
23: SMTI APARNA NATH
DAUGHTER OF LATE ANANDA MOHAN NATH
VILLAGE AMARKHAL
P.O ANIPUR
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
24: SHRI SANJEEB DAS
VILLAGE NAYAGRAM
NILAMBAZAR
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
25: SHRI KALYAN KUMAR DEY
SON OF LATE KANAI LAL DEY
VILLAGE CHARAKURI
WARD NO. 5
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
Page No. 25
26: SMTI ANINDITA ROY
DAUGHTER OF ARABINDRA ROY
ROY NAGAR
KARIMGANJ
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
27: SHRI SOUMEN ROY
SON OF JALODISH ROY
SETTLEMENT ROAD
WARD NO. 2
P.O. SETTLEMENT ROAD
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
28: SMTI SIMA DEB
DAUGHTER OF LATE JYOTISH DEB
VILLAGE AND P.O. BARAIGRAM
788723
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
29: SHRI PRODYUT KUMAR DEY
SON OF LATE PRASANTA KUMAR DEY
LAXSHMI BAZAR ROAD
P. O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ-788710
30: SMTI ARPITA DUTTA CHOUDHURY @ ARPITA DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE RABINDRA KUMAR DAS
BIRASRE SARADA PALLY
MALIPARA
KARIMGANJ-788710.
31: SMTI SABITA PAUL
DAUGHTER OF LATE RAKESH CHANDRA PAUL
VILLAGE RAMKRISHNA NAGAR
P.O. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR
32: SMTI KAKALI DEY
DAUGHTER OF SRI BIRESWAR CHOUDHURY
JUMBASTI M.E. SCHOOL ROAD
BADARPUR
POST OFFICE BADARPUR- 788806
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
Page No. 26
ASSAM.
33: SHRI JYOTISWARNARAYAN SARMA
SON OF LATE RAMENDRA NARAYAN SARMA
CHARBAZAR
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
34: SMTI TAPASHI DEB DHAR
DAUGHTER OF LATE TAPADIR RANJAN DEB
R.C. DAS ROAD
KARIMGANJ
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ-788710
ASSAM.
35: SMTI ANUPA PAUL
C/O LATE MAKHAN LAL PAUL
RAMKRISHNA MISSION ROAD
KARIMGANJ
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
36: MD. MAZIR UDDIN
SON OF ABDUS SATTAR
VILLAGE DURLOVPUR
P. O. KANIBAZAR-788724
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
37: SHRI MOHITOSH DAS
SON OF LATE MIHIR KUMAR DAS
LONGAI ROAD
KARIMGANJ-
38: SHRI SELIM UDDIN
SON OF USTAR ALI
VILLAGE AND P.O. ERALIGOOL
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ.
39: MD. ABDUL KHALIQUE
SON OF LATE ABDUL GOFUR
VILLAGE DARARPAR
P.O. BURGANAGAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
40: SHRI SWARUP DAS
SON OF BIRENDRA CHANDRA DAS
Page No. 27
VILLAGE BIDYANAGAR
P.O. NILAMBAZR
DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
41: SMTI AJITA NATH
DAUGHTER OF SATYENDRA CHANDRA NATH
VILLAGE HALGHAT
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
42: MD. CHHAD UDDIN
SON OF LATE JUNAB ALI
VILLAGE AND P.O. PECHALA- 78873. DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
43: SMTI MONTEE PURKAYASTHA
DAUGHTER OF BONOMALI PURKAYASTHA
R.K. MISSION ROAD
KARIMGANJ-788710
44: SMTI ANUBHA DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE NARENDRA CHANDRA DAS
NARIKHALI
LAKSHMIBAZAR- 788709
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
45: SRI DWIJENDRA CHANDRA DAS
SON OF LATE RABINDRA CHANDRA DAS
INDIRA COLONY
KARIMGANJ-788710
46: SMTI MITALI PAUL
DAUGHTER OF LATE AMAL KANTI PAUL
LONGAI TEA ESTATE
P.O. CHANDKHIRA-788725
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
47: SMTI MADHABI DEBNATH
DAUGHTER OF DAYAMOY DEBNATH
MARUGAON TILHHEM
Page No. 28
KARIMGANJ-788725
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
48: SMTI MOUSUMI BANIK
DAUGHTER OF MONORANJAN BANIK
BIPIN PAUL ROAD
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ-78871
49: SRI BISHWESWAR NATH
SON OF LATE BIPIN CHANDRA NATH
VILLAGE KENTKONA
P.O. SRIGOURI BAZAR
788719 DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
50: SRI KULESH CHANDRA NATH
SON OF SATYENDRA CHANDRA NATH
VILLAGE SURIGRAM
P.O. AYLABARI
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
51: SHRI SHYAMAL BHTTACHARJEE
SON OF SHYAMAPADA BHATTACHARJEE
RAMKRISHNA NAGAR
788166
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
52: SRI ARDHANDU DEB
SON OF LATE ADHAR CHANDRA DEB
VETERBOND
788736
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
53: SHRI AMIT KUMAR DAS
SON OF LATE MOHIT KUMAR DAS
LAKSHMICHARAN ROAD
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ-788710
ASSAM
54: SHRI SAUMEN CHAKRABORTY
SON OF LATE SATYENDRA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Page No. 29
MAIN ROAD
OPP. R.S. GIRLS COLLEGE
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
55: SHRI RAMKRISHNA PAUL
SON OF LATE PRANBALLAB PAUL
SHIB BARI ROAD
WARD NO. 16
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
56: SHRI SABYASACHI CHAKRABORTY
C/O LATE SUDHEN CHAKRABORTY
AZAD SAGAR ROAD
P.O. SETTLEMENT ROAD
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ-788712
ASSAM
57: SHRI SIJU DAS
SON OF JOGADISH DAS
SADARASHI
P.O AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ-788709
58: SHRI MRINAL KANTI BATTACHARJEE
SON OF LATE JNANENDRA BHATTACHARJEE
VILLAGE CHARAGIBAZAR
P.O. CHARAGI-788737
DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
59: SHRI SUBHASISH PAUL
SON OF GOURANGA PAUL
BANAMALI ROAD
WARD NO. 13
P.O. AND DISTRICT KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
Page No. 30
ASSAM
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
3:THE MEMBER-SECRETARY
EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS ELIGIBILITY
TEST TET
GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-7810019.
5:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
SARVA SIKHA ABHIYAN
SSA
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUW AHATI-781019.
6:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCREENING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR
SARVA SIKHA ABHIYAN
SSA
KARIMGANJ DISTRICT
POST OFFICE KARIMGANJ-788710
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N DHAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC
SSA
Linked Case : WP(C) 7147/2017
1:SIDHARTHA SANKAR DEY and 49 ORS.
S/O. LT. SUBINOY KUMAR DEY
Page No. 31
NEAR M.M.M.C. SCHOOL
KARIMGANJ
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
788710
ASSAM.
2: SMTI MOUSUMI BHATTACHARJEE
D/O. LT. AMARESH BHATTACHARJEE
LAXMI BAZAR ROAD
OPP. SALES TAX OFFICE
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
788710
ASSAM.
3: PABITRA DEY
S/O. LT. KALIDAS DEY
JYOTIKUCHI
DHOUPALIA
UJJALPATH
P.O. SAWKUCHI-781040
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
4: KALYAN PAUL
S/O. LT. KANAILAL PAUL
VILL. ALEXANDARPUR
P.O. KATLICHERA-788722
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
5: MD. MORTUJA HUSSAIN
S/O. LT. MONOZZIR ALI
VILL. NIZ HAFANIA
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
PIN-788710
ASSAM.
6: MD. KAMAL UDDIN
S/O. ABDUL AZIZ
VILL. SATGHORI
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ-788710
ASSAM.
7: SHYMAL KAR
S/O. KRIPESH CHANDRA KAR
VILL. BARCHERAPAR
P.O. DUHALIA-788724
DIST. KARIMGANJ
Page No. 32
ASSAM.
8: SMTI. SUPRIYA ROY
D/O. LT. KAJAL CHOUDHURY
RONGPUR
NABAPALLY
P.O. RONGPUR-788009
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
9: TAPAN CHANDRA SHIL
S/O. ANIL CHANDRA SHIL
MAIZ BAGARGOOL
P.O. RAKESH NAGAR-788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
10: SMTI. KABERI DAS
D/O. LT. SITESH CHANDRA DAS
P.O. SETTLEMENT ROAD-788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
11: SMTI. DEBJANI DEB
D/O. LT. NIRENDRA CHANDRA DEB
P.O. SHALGANGA
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
12: PARTHA SARATHI CHANDA
S/O. LT. PRABHAT RANJAN CHANDA
VILL. PANGRAM
PART III
P.O. PANGRAM
UDHARBOND-788030
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
13: MD. RUHUL KUDDUS
S/O. LT. NOOR UDDIN
VILL. FAKIRABAZAR
P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ-788710
ASSAM.
14: SMTI. PURBALI DEB
D/O. LT. INDU BHUSAN DEB
AMBICAPATTY
P.O. SILCHAR-700884
Page No. 33
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
15: MD. RASHID AHMED LASKAR
S/O. MUTIUR RAHMAN LASKAR
VILL. LALARCHAK
P.O. LALARCHAK-788713
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
16: MD. KHAIRUL ALAM CHOUDHURY
S/O. LT. ABDUL QUADIR CHOUDHURY
VILL. SARIFNAGAR
P.O.-788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
17: SMTI. APORNA ROY DAS
D/O. LT. MOTILAL ROY
WARD NO. 10
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
18: MD. MUSTAQUE HASAN CHOUDHURY
S/O. LT. MALIKUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY
VILL. SARIFNAGAR
P.O. 788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
19: SABYASACHI NATH
S/O. LT. SUBHAS CHANDRA NATH
VILL. and P.O. BAROMUNI-788121
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
20: AJAPA PAUL
D/O. AJIT PAUL
RAMKRISHNA SARANI NATIONAL HIGHWAY
P.O. SILCHAR 12
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
21: SMTI NIVEDITA ACHARYA
D/O. LT. AMLA BHUSAN ACHARYA
SONAI ROAD
ASUTOSH LANE
Page No. 34
SILCHAR-788006
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
22: ANUP KUMAR SHIL
S/O. LT. ADWAITA CHANDRA SHIL
BROJENDRA ROAD
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
23: SMTI. SAGARIKA NATH
D/O. LT. BALARAM NATH
VILL. NAYAGRAM
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
24: MD. RIAZ UDDIN
S/O. LT. ABDUS SAMAD
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
25: MANNA DHAR
S/O. LT. MANIK CHANDRA DHAR
COLLEGE ROAD
WARD NO. 13
P.O. and DIST. HAILAKANDI-788151
ASSAM.
26: MD. ABDUL HAMID TALUKDAR
S/O. MD. SIRAJ UDDIN
VILL. CHINAONAL
P.O. DARGARBOND-788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
27: RIKTA NATH
D/O. LT. RABINDRA KUMAR NATH
KALINAGAR
KADAMTOLA
P.O. KADAMTOLA-788166
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
28: DIPANKAR CHAKRABORTY
S/O. PRAFULLA CHAKRABORTY
Page No. 35
RAMKRISHNA PALLY
P.O. BADARPUR-788806
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
29: MANASH LAL DEY
S/O. LT. MAKHAN LAL DEY
ZUMBASTI
WARD NO. 4
P.O. BADARPUR-788806
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
30: BISWAJIT KUMAR DUTTA
S/O. LT. NANDA GOPAL DUTTA
RAILWAY WIRELESS COLONY
P.O. BADARPUR-788806
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
31: ANINDYA KAR
S/O. LT. ANIL CHANDRA KAR
BUDDHA COLONY
HOUSE NO. 179/F
P.O. BADARPUR-788806
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
32: KAUSTAV CHAKRABORTY
S/O. LT. KALIPRASANNA CHAKRABORTY
P.O. NILAMBAZAR-788722
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
33: SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE
S/O. LT. SITANSU SEKHAR BHATTACHARJEE
GAUTAM ROY LANE
WARD NO. 9
P.O. and DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
34: MANNA CHAKRABORTY
S/O. LT. MANINDRA CHAKRABORTY
HOLAT COLONY
LAXMISAHAR-788152
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
Page No. 36
35: SMTI. SUMA CHAKRABORTY
D/O. LT. PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY
P.O. KATLICHERA-788752
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
36: BISWAJIT SARMA
S/O. LT. JITENDRA LAL SARMA
HAILAKANDI TOWN
P.O. 788152
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
37: BHASKAR PAUL
S/O. LT. RAKESH RANJAN PAUL
DULIAKHAL
P.O. DURTTAGRAM-788722
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
38: UTPAL ROY CHOUDHURY
S/O. LT. RAMESH ROY CHOUDHURY
BROJENDRA ROAD
P.O-788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
39: SANKAR DAS
S/O. LT. BROJENDRA KUMAR DAS
VILL. NUTON BAZARGHAT
P.O. GOBINDAGANJ BAZAR
P.O. GOBINDAGANJ BAZAR-788733
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
40: SWAPAN CHANDA
S/O. SUROJIT KUMAR CHANDA
P.O. BAZARGHAT-788733
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
41: SMTI. RITA DAS
D/O. UMESH CHANDRA DAS
P.O. BHANGA-788701
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
42: DEBASISH DUTTA
Page No. 37
S/O. SHRI RASENDRA DUTTA
P.O. RATABARI-788735
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
43: MD. SAFAR UDDIN TALUKDAR
S/O. LT. ABDUR RAHMAN TALUKDAR
WEST TONGLIBARI
P.O. RATABARI-788735
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
44: MD. MUKTAR HUSSAIN ANSARI
S/O. LT. MONORAM ALI ANSARI
KATLICHERRA
P.O.-788161
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
45: MD. MUZIBUR RAHMAN
S/O. MD. MNOTIUR RAHMAN
P.O. BADARPURGHAT-788806
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
46: SMTI. MINU RANU DEY
D/O. SHRI MAKHAN CHANDRA NATH
TILBHUM
MARUGRAM
P.O.-788725
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
47: MD. AMAD UDDIN
S/O. LT. KAJIMUR RAHMAN
GARKAPAN
P.O. BADARPUR-788806
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
48: RITA CHAKRABORTY
D/O. LT. RABINDRA CHAKRABORTY
KALIMAHABIRBARI ROAD
P.O. 788710
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
49: MD. LUBAN UDDIN
Page No. 38
S/O. LT. ABDUL HAQUE
VILL. AMALAGRAM
P.O. BARAIGRAM-788723
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
50: SMTI. BASABI RANI NATH
D/O. BROJENDRA MOHAN NATH
HOSPITAL ROAD
P.O. DULLABCHERRA-788736
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
ASSAM.
2:THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM.
3:THE MEMBER SECRETARY
EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY TEACHERS ELIGIBILITY
TEST TET
GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION ELE. DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019.
5:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
SARVA SIKHA ABHIYAN
SSA
ASSAM
Page No. 39
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019.
6:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCREENING COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE DISTRICT MISSION COORDINATOR
SARVA SIKHA ABHIYAN
SSA
KARIMGANJ DISTRICT
P.O. KARIMGANJ-788710
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S DASGUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
For the Petitioners : Mr. N. Dhar, Advocate.
: Mr. M. J. Quadir, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. D. Saikia, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. R. Mazumdar, SC Elementary Education.
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2020
Date of Judgment : 04.09.2020
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Soumitra Saikia, J.)
These Writ petitions being WP(C) No. 5572/2017, WP(C) No. 7147/2017 & WP(C) No.
7387/2017 although filed by different petitioners centre around a common question and are
premised on similar facts. These writ petitions are a sequel to an earlier round of litigation
resorted to by the petitioners pertaining to the same issue. The petitioners are aggrieved by
the rejection of their candidatures seeking contractual appointments to the posts of Assistant
Teachers in Lower Primary Schools in various districts of Assam, in pursuance to
advertisements issued by the respondent authorities. Additionally, WP(C) No. 8068/2019 has
Page No. 40
been filed by the petitioners therein challenging the Schedule-I framed under Rule 3(vi)(a) of
the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 and thereby seeking a Writ of
Certiorari for setting aside and quashing of the said Schedule-I framed under Rule 3(vi)(a). A
further prayer is also made seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent authorities
to amend the impugned Schedule-I of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization)
Rules, 1977 and thereby to provide for adding of marks secured by the candidates in their
graduates degree examination from the UGC recognized Universities, for the purpose of their
selection to the post of teachers in the Lower Primary Schools in accordance with Rule 3(b)
and Rule 3(vi)(a) of the Assam Elementary Education(Provincialization) Rules, 1977. As WP(C)
No. 8068/2019 has put the Schedule-I of the 1977 Rules to challenge, the matter was placed
before the Division Bench as per the High Court Rules. Thereafter by subsequent orders of
this court, all these writ petitions were directed to be listed together. Accordingly, all these
writ petitions listed today are taken up together for hearing and disposal.
2. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for all the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.
Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for all
the respondents.
3. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 5572/2017 and WP(C) No. 7147/2017 are aggrieved by the
order dated 02.01.2016 passed by the Mission Director, Sarva Sikhsa Abhiyan (hereinafter
referred to as SSA) Assam whereby their claims for consideration of their candidatures to the
posts of Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary Schools across various districts in the State of
Assam were rejected. Earlier the SSA vide Advertisement dated 12.02.2014 invited
applications for appointment on Contractual Basis to the posts of Assistant Teachers in Lower
Primary Schools across various districts in the State of Assam. As per the said advertisement
dated 12.02.2014, 50% in Higher Secondary (or its equivalent) with TET (medium specific)
passed or Graduate degree under UGC recognized universities with Teacher Eligibility Test
(TET) qualification was provided for as the "Essential Qualification and Experience" for being
eligible for selection and appointment to the said posts. The petitioners, being graduate
degree holders under UGC recognized universities with Teacher Eligibility Test(TET)
qualifications duly applied in response to the said Advertisement. The petitioners contend
Page No. 41
that in spite of the petitioners being graduate degree holders under UGC recognized
universities with Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualifications and thereby making them eligible
in the terms of the advertisement dated 12.02.2014, the District Level Screening Committees,
Sarva Siksha Mission, of the districts of Karimganj, Cachar, Hailakandi and Kamrup(M)
rejected the candidatures of the petitioners on the premise that they did not secure 50%
marks in their Higher Secondary Examinations.
4. Subsequently, in the year 2014, another similar Advertisement dated 16.07.2014 was
issued by the SSA again inviting applications for appointment on Contractual Basis to the
posts of Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary Schools across various districts in the State of
Assam. As the petitioners were overaged by then, they represented before the Director,
Elementary Education, Government of Assam for condonation of the age-bar. The Director,
Elementary Education, Government of Assam by orders dated 28.07.2014, 15.02.2014
condoned the ages of the petitioners to enable them to apply for the posts advertised. The
petitioners thereafter applied for the posts in response to the Advertisement dated
16.07.2014. However, the District Level Screening Committees, Sarva Siksha Mission, of the
districts of Karimganj, Cachar, Hailakandi and Kamrup(M) again rejected the candidatures of
the petitioners on the ground that they did not secure 50% marks in their Higher Secondary
Examinations in spite of the petitioners, being graduate degree holders under UGC recognized
universities with Teacher Eligibility Test(TET) passed qualifications. The petitioners also
apprehended that their candidatures might have been rejected by treating them to be
overaged and thereby ignoring condonation of the age-bar by the Government in their favour.
5. Being aggrieved by such non-consideration of their candidatures as mentioned above,
the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 6879/2014. A Single Bench of this Court disposed of the writ
petition vide order dated 02.02.2015 holding that " there is no dispute at the bar that in case
of graduate candidates getting, 50% marks in Higher Secondary is not necessary. The first
qualification of getting 50 % mark in Higher Secondary Examination is disjuncted from a
qualification of U.G.C. recognised Universities with TET (medium specific) passed by;
"and/or". This being the position, the authority clearly fell in error in presuming the present
petitioners to be ineligible to the posts of Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary Schools under
Page No. 42
the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA)". The respondent authority - Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Mission
Assam was also directed to make an enquiry as to whether the petitioners are really
overaged. It was also directed that if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the age bar of the petitioners had been condoned by the Government, is found to be
correct, in that event the authority shall consider the candidatures of the petitioners as
eligible and thereafter pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
6. In pursuance to the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by this Court, respondent No. 5 -
the Mission Director, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Mission (SSA), Assam, considered the candidatures
of the petitioners and by the impugned order dated 02.01.2016 (annexure-6 to the writ
petition) rejected the candidatures of the petitioners. The respondent authorities by their
impugned order held that the petitioners had mixed up two different issues viz. requisite
qualification(s) for appearing in the TET examination and the process of recruitment of Lower
Primary teachers. The SSA authorities maintained that the recruitment process was
conducted strictly in the order of merit as per Format- 1 prescribed under para 5 of the
guidelines notified vide no. SSA/Estt(TT)/Rectt /Medium/107/2014/10957 dated 23.07.2014
read with the directions of National Council for Teacher Education issued from time to time in
conformity with the norms of 'Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009'.
The claims of the petitioners were accordingly rejected by the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan(SSA),
Assam Authority.
7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners by these petitions, assailed the order dated 02.01.2016
passed by the SSA authorities in WP(C) No. 5572/2017 praying for a Writ of Certiorari for
setting aside and quashing the impugned Order. The petitioners have also prayed for a Writ
of Mandamus for directing the respondents to provide for appointment of the petitioners to
the posts of Assistant Teachers Lower Primary Schools in the Karimganj District of the State
of Assam.
8. Similarly WP(C) No. 7387/2017 has been preferred by the petitioners who had similar
grievances as the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6879/2014. Before the learned Single Judge they
had earlier preferred WP(C) No. 1541/2015 and WP(C) No. 1546/2015 challenging the actions
Page No. 43
of the SSA authorities regarding their candidatures for the posts Assistant Teachers in Lower
Primary Schools of Assam in various districts. By relying on the order dated 02.02.2015
passed in WP(C) No. 6879/2014, a single bench of this Court by order dated 20.03.2015 had
disposed of these two writ petitions by issuing similar directions to the SSA authorities. In
pursuance to the directions contained in order dated 20.03.2015 passed in WP(C) No.
1541/2015 and WP(C) No. 1546/2015 by this Court, the Mission Director, SSA, Assam
considered the candidatures of those petitioners. However, vide the impugned orders dated
22.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 respectively, the SSA authorities rejected the claims of these
petitioners on similar grounds as had been indicated in the order dated 02.01.2016 which is
impugned in WP(C) No. 5572/2017. Being aggrieved those petitioners have jointly preferred
WP(C) No. 7387/2017 assailing the orders dated 22.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 passed by the
SSA authorities praying for a Writ of Certiorari for setting aside and quashing the impugned
orders. The petitioners have also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus for directing the
respondents to take into consideration the marks obtained in their Graduation qualifications
along with the TET qualifications and assign/allot marks thereon in the selection process for
appointment of the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Teachers Lower Primary Schools in
the Districts of Cachar and Hailakandi in the State of Assam, considering their applications
submitted in response to the advertisement dated 16.07.2014.
9. The counsel for the petitioners urged that since the prayers made in WPC No.
8068/2019, if granted will address the grievances of the petitioners raised in other connected
writ petitions, as the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5572/2017 are also petitioners in WP(C) No.
8068/2019 wherein the Schedule-I framed under Rule 3(vi)(a) of the Assam Elementary
Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 has been assailed and thereby seeking a Writ of
Certiorari for setting aside and quashing of the said Schedule-I. A further prayer is also made
seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to amend the impugned
Schedule-I framed under Rule 3(vi)(a) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization)
Rules 1977 and thereby to provide for adding of marks secured by the candidates in their
graduate degree examinations from UGC recognized universities, for the purposes of their
selection to the posts of teachers in the Lower Primary Schools in accordance with Rule 3(b)
and Rule 3(vi)(a) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977.
Page No. 44
10. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 8068/2019 premise their prayer for setting aside
Schedule-I of the Rules of 1977 by referring to Notification No. F. No. 61-1 / 2011 / NCTE
(N&S) dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure 1 to WPC No. 8068/2019 ) issued by the National Council
for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE) whereby the petitioners claim
that for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the Lower Primary Schools, the
minimum qualification provided therein inter alia is 50% marks in the Senior Secondary and
two year Diploma in Elementary Education or Graduation with two years Diploma in
Elementary Education with Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) pass. The petitioners contend that
the SSA authorities have rejected the candidatures of the petitioners by ignoring/not taking
into account the mandate of the Notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE. In
support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chandrakala Trivedi -Vs- State of
Rajasthan & Ors reported in (2012) 3 SCC 129. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied
on this judgment to support his contention that the Supreme Court in this case allowed the
appeal filed by the petitioner setting aside the cancellation order passed by the Rajasthan
Public Service Commission of the provisional/appointment of the appellant therein on the
ground that the appellant did not pass the Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination
although she had obtained her graduation from IGNOU and thereafter her B.Ed. & M. A.
Degree from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University.
11. The State of Assam on the other hand strongly disputed the contentions of the
petitioners and contested the cases by referring to the counter affidavits filed. Counter
affidavit in WP(C) No. 5572/2017 was filed by respondent No. 5- Sarva Siksha Assam (SSA)
whereas counter affidavit in WP(C) No. 8068/2019 has been filed by the respondent No. 2-
Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of Education (Elementary). It
is submitted by the State that the affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 5572/2017 will be sufficient for
the purposes of WP(C) No. 7147/2017 and WP(C) No. 7386/2017 also and therefore the
learned senior counsel appearing for the State craves leave of this Court to rely on the same
in respect of the said two writ petitions also. The State of Assam through their counter
affidavits pleaded that the petitioners were not considered for appointment as they fell short
of the cutoff marks in the merit list. It was further pleaded that marks for Graduate Degree
Page No. 45
qualifications as insisted by the petitioners, cannot be added as there was no provision for
such as per the Guidelines issued by the SSA. As per the guidelines, provision for allotment of
marks is available/made only if 50% is secured in the Higher secondary (or its equivalent)
examinations by any candidate. As the petitioners did not secure 50% in their Higher
Secondary, they were not selected as there was no provision as per the guidelines to consider
their graduate qualifications in lieu thereof and allot marks thereon. In the counter affidavit
filed in WP(C) No. 8068/2019, it was pleaded by the State that the petitioners had also filed a
contempt case being Contempt Case No. 2/2016 alleging willful disobedience of the order
dated 02.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 6876/2014. This Court by order dated 11.01.2018,
upon hearing the counsels for the parties closed the contempt petition upon arriving at a
satisfaction that the case of the petitioners were duly considered by the respondent
authorities in terms of the order dated: 02.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 6876/2014. As such
it is submitted by the State Counsel that there is no infirmity with the Rule and/or the
Schedule appended thereto as the same has been drawn up as per the mandate of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as well as the National Council for
Teacher Education Regulations. The selections have been made strictly in terms of the
guidelines framed by SSA in terms of the Notifications issued by NCTE. And as such there is
no infirmity with the same.
12. The further contention of the State respondents is that even assuming though not
admitting, that the petitioners are aggrieved by the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014
published (annexure 3 to writ petition), the same having not been put to challenge, and the
petitioners having appeared in the selection and thereafter not being selected, now cannot
turn around and assail the selection. It is also contended that pursuant to the Advertisement
dated 16.07.2014, selections of the eligible candidates and their consequential appointments
have long been made and it is too long in a day now to unsettle the settled position. It is
further contended that the selected candidates who are in service have also not been arrayed
as party respondents and, as such, the writ petitions besides being devoid of merits should
be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, the learned State Counsel urged,
that there is no scope to interpret that the Schedule-I under Rule 3(vi)(a) appended to the
Provincialization Rules of 1977 is in conflict with Rule 3(vi)(a) itself in the manner sought to
Page No. 46
be interpreted by the petitioners and the writ petitions accordingly be dismissed as being
devoid of any merit.
13. We have heard the rival arguments and contentions for the parties and have also
considered the pleadings on record. For the present proceedings, essentially there are no
disputes on the facts contended by the parties to the lis and the issue relates to
determination of rights of the petitioners if any, accrued under the advertisement dated:
23/7/2014 viz-a-viz, the mandate of the Rules of 1977 read with notifications issued by the
NCTE. We propose to examine matters accordingly.
14. The Right to Education Act, 2009 was brought in by the Government of India making
Education compulsory for children up to 14 years. By this statute a sea-change has been
brought about in the field of education, from primary to secondary level, by bringing in
several requirements and parameters which are to be maintained by the State in respect of
the school management authorities as well as the qualifications desired from teachers seeking
employment as such. As per the provisions of the Act, the qualifications and the Terms and
Conditions of services of the Teachers are to be laid down by the 'Academic Authority' as
authorized in this regard by the Central Government. Much prior to the enactment of the RTE
Act 2009, the Central Government had established a Council to be called the National Council
for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE) under the National Council for
Teacher Education Act, 1993. The Constitution, the Powers, functions of the National Council
for Teacher Education are as provided for under the said Act of 1993. After the enactment of
RTE Act 2009, the Central Government by Notification dated 31 st March, 2010, which was
published in the Gazette of India dated 5 th April, 2010, notified the National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE) to be the 'Academic Authority' to lay down the minimum
qualifications for being eligible for appointment as a teacher, as also the curriculum and the
evaluation procedure. Thereafter, the NCTE by notifications from time to time laid down the
minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher for Class-I to
Class-VIII in a school referred to in Clause(n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In view of the notification published by the Government of
India authorizing the NCTE as the Academic Authority to lay down the parameters with
regard to the qualifications of teachers; the selection process, the curriculum to be imparted
Page No. 47
to the students, the evaluation etc are all required to be set by the National Council for
Teacher Education. These are then notified by the NCTE by Notifications from time to time
and are published in the Gazette of India. The State of Assam is required to mandatorily
adhere to the parameters as laid down by NCTE from time to time.
15. Section 23 of the RTE Act provides for the qualifications for appointment and terms
and conditions of the services of teachers. Under the said section any person possessing such
minimum qualifications, as laid down by the ' academic authority', as authorized by the Central
Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. For ready
reference Section 23 of the RTE Act 2009 and the Notification dated: 31 st March 2010 are
extracted below :-
Section 23 Qualification for appointment and terms and
conditions of service of teachers-
(i) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as
laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the Central
Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a
teacher.
(ii) Where a State does not have adequate institutions
offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers
possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-
section(1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central
Government may, if its deems necessary, by notifications, relax the
minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for
such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that
notification :
Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does
not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-
Section(1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period
of five years.
(iii) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and
conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be
prescribed.
*********
NOTIFICATION Page No. 48 New Delhi, 31st March, 2010 S.O. 750(E). - In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Central Government hereby authorizes the National Council for Teacher Education as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment of a teacher.
[F. No. 1-13/2009-EE-4] Anita Kaul, Jt Secy
16. After being notified as the "Academic Authority" by the Central Government vide Notification no: S.O. 750(E) dated 31st March 2010 and published in the Gazette of India dated 5th April, 2010; the NCTE by the Notification No. 61-03/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23 rd August, 2010, notified the minimum qualifications for being appointed as teachers in Classes I to V. Since in the present proceedings we are concerned with the qualifications of the Lower Primary Section only (i.e. classes I to V), we confine ourselves to the minimum qualifications laid down by the NCTE relating to Class-I to V which are extracted below:-
1 " Minimum Qualifications.-
(i) Classes I-V (Lower Primary)
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4- year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) Page No. 49 OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
17. Thereafter by Notification dated 29th July, 2011, the National Council for Teacher Education further modified the minimum qualifications required for persons to become eligible for appointment as a teacher. By the said notification the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher for Classes-I to V were notified as under:-
1. Minimum Qualifications
(i) Classes I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education).
OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by Page No. 50 whatever name known).
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
18. Again by Notification dated 12 November, 2014, the National Council for Teacher Education in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 32 read with Section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 in supersession of the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 brought in the new Regulation, namely, the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations, 2014 . The said Regulations were published in the Gazette of India dated 16 th December, 2014. The qualifications for recruitment of the teachers was provided for under the First Schedule. The minimum Academic and Profession Qualifications for Primary and Upper Primary (Class-I to VIII) as notified in the First Schedule at Serial No. 3 of the table are the qualifications which were laid down by Notification dated 23.08.2010 (supra) and as amended from time to time issued in the exercise of power conferred under Sub-section 1 of Section 23 of Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The petitioners rely on the NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011 to support their contention that this notification held force when the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014 was issued and during the process of selection which followed thereafter. The petitioners strongly contend that notwithstanding the petitioners not having secured 50% in their Higher Secondary, their graduate qualifications were sufficient to make them eligible for the selection and appointment in terms of the said NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011.
19. In order to appreciate the rival arguments, it will also be necessary to look in the Rules and the Notifications issued by the NCTE which provided for such selection and appointment and also the parameters for such selection. The Assam Elementary Education Page No. 51 (Provincialization) Rules 1977 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1977) has been made by the Governor of Assam under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Teachers of the elementary schools of the State of Assam, which have been provincialized under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Act 1974. Rule 3 of the said Rules lays down the method of Recruitment. Rule 3(vi) lays down the "Selection Procedure and Appointment ". Under Rule 3(vi)(a) of the Rules, the District Level Selection Committee (DLSC) shall prepare the district-wise select list of suitable candidates considering their academic achievements in the descending order of merit as per "Schedule-I" appended to the Rules of 1977. For ready reference the relevant portion of Schedule 1 appended to said Rules of 1977 is extracted as under:-
Selection of teachers for Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools shall be made on the basis of marks obtained out of total marks of 330 for Lower Primary Schools and 430 for Upper Primary Schools apportioned for general qualifications, professional qualifications (D.El.Ed./BI.Ed./B.Ed. etc), Teachers Eligibility Test for holding certificate of NCC, Sports, Fine Arts and Cultural Activities as under-
For the post of L.P. Teachers :
(a) Credit for the marks secured in the Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent : 100 marks, which shall be directly proportional to the percentage of marks secured in the H.S. Examination.
(b) Credit for marks secured in professional degree/diploma the D.El.Ed./Bl.Ed/B.Ed. (by whatever name known) from any recognized University : 100 marks, which shall be directly proportional to the percentage of marks secured in the D.El.Ed./Bl.Ed/B.Ed. Examination.
(c) Credit for marks secured in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination : 100 marks, which be directly proportional to the Page No. 52 percentage of marks secured in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination.
There shall be no marks for viva-voce. However, 30 marks shall be awarded as specified below:-
(a) 10 marks for NCC "C" Certificate (5 marks if "B" Certificate holders);
(b) 10 marks for participation in recognized sports at National Level representing Assam;
(C) 10 marks for achievements in Fine Arts and Cultural Activities representing the State Officially at National Level.
20. It is also necessary to reflect on the Guidelines dated 23.07.2014 issued by the SSA for the process to be adopted for selections in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 23.07.2014. In the said guidelines under the " Process of Assigning Marks" it was clearly laid down that the Committee (District Level Screening Cum Verification Committee) must not consider any other marks obtained in other exams such as HSLC or Equivalent, Graduation, Post-Graduation and other Professional Qualification not mentioned in the guidelines of NCTE. Further it was also mentioned inter alia that a candidate is liable to be rejected at the very outset, if he or she has not passed the Higher Secondary or its equivalent examination with a minimum of 50% marks. The guidelines were stated to be framed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Notification dated 20 th October, 2012 whereby the Rule 3 in the A.E.E. (P) Rules, 1977 were amended. These guidelines are enclosed as Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Mission Director, SSA in WP(C) No. 5572/2017, which affidavit itself is also enclosed as Annexure-8 to the present Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 8068/2019. The table appended to the guidelines for recording the details of the candidates does not have any column to record "marks obtained in HSLC or Graduation"
other than that in "Higher Secondary (HSSLC)". The relevant portion of the guidelines is extracted below:-Page No. 53
5. Process for Assigning Marks:
The selection of the candidates shall be strictly in order of merit. The District Level Screening cum Verification Committee will conduct screening on the fixed dated and time and once the documents have been verified, the Committee will assess the merit of the applicant, taking into consideration the academic record, professional qualifications and TET scores in the following manner-
For Lower Primary: Paper-I [Format-1] at Annexure-I The Format-1 for eligible candidates whose certificates/mark sheets/documents are verified and found correct and to be submitted by District Level Screening cum Verification Committee and for preparation of Merit List at State Mission Office.
Sl Particulars Credit allotted Marks Total Marks Marks
No. for screening Obtained as obtained in
(in absolute per Board/ percentage
number) Council (A)
1 HSSLC or equivalent 100
Examination
2 TET 100
3 2 year Diploma in 100
Elementary Education
including 2 year PSTE **
Diploma in Special
Education or other
professional qualification
notified by NCTE as per
RTE Act, 2009.
Total Marks obtained 300
Marks awarded as follows (if applicable) Credit allotted Marks Obtained in
for screening absolute number (B)
a) 10 marks for NCC "C" Certificate (5 marks if 10
"B" Certificate holder).
b) 10 marks of participation in recognized sports 10
at National Level representing Assam.
c) 10 marks for achievement in Fine, Arts and 10
Cultural Activities representing the State officially at National Level.Grand Total Marks obtained 330 Page No. 54
(A+B) Thus the total marks for selection will be 330 for Lower Primary.
* Based on the % of marks secured in the concerned examination, rounded off to two decimal points ** PSTE course as conducted by SCERT Assam in 2000-2003 will be taken at par with D.El.Ed for the purpose of this selection process only.
*** B.Ed will not be counted as professional qualification in the case of candidates for Lower Primary school teachers, as per NCTE notification no. F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE (N&S), dtd. New Delhi, the 29th July, 2011.
**** Please note that for Lower Primary Level, Graduation is only entry Level criteria but no marks would be entered.
**** The foundation course (like BPP) of Open University will not be considered as HS (10+2) level examination.
The Committee must not consider any other marks obtained in other exams such as HSLC or Equivalent, Graduation, Post Graduate and other Professional Qualification not mentioned in the guidelines of NCTE.
6. Grounds for rejection and preparation of list of Rejected Candidates.
The District Level Screening cum Verification Committee may reject the Candidates on the Following grounds.
a. A candidate is liable to be rejected at the very outset, if he or she has not passed Higher Secondary or its equivalent examination with minimum 50% marks or doesn't have a graduation degree from any UGC recognized University. However, for SC, ST, OBC, MOBC and Physically Handicapped candidates, the candidate must have 45% marks in Higher Secondary or its equivalent, or possess a graduation degree from any UGC recognized University or else he or she will be liable for rejection.
Page No. 55In this regard, the foundation course like BPP under Open University will not be considered and his/her candidature will be rejected if he/she does not have graduation from recognized University.
b. A candidate will be liable for rejection if he or she has not scored minimum 90 out of 150 marks in TET examination,(in other words 60%). In case of SC, ST, OBC, MOBC and PH category candidates, a candidate will be liable for rejection if he or she has not scored minimum 83 out of 150 marks, (in other words 55%), in the TET examination. Some general category candidates may come with TET Certificates of below 90 marks, but they have to be rejected.
c. Candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC, MOBC category are liable for rejection if they fail to produce bona fide caste certificate issued by the authority.
d. Candidates belonging to Physically Handicapped category (orthopedically handicapped) as per advertisement are liable for rejection if they fail to produce bona fide disability certificate issued by Competent Authority showing degree or disability to be at least 40%.
e. In case of candidates who have applied on the basis of graduation, a candidate would be liable for rejection if he or she fails to produce graduation certificate awarded by the UGC recognized University.
f. Candidates who are unable to produce valid age-proof or identification document are liable to be rejected. Candidate of general category above 38 years of age and candidates belonging to SC, ST, PH above 43 years will be rejected if he/she fails to furnish the age condonation certificate with unique code issued by the Director, Elementary Education. Candidates below the age of 18 years as on 01.01.2014 will be rejected.
g. Candidates whose MIL in HSLC is not same with the
specific medium (as passed in TET) will be rejected.
h. Non fulfillment or violation of any other ground as per
advertisement vide No.
SSA/Esstt(TT)/Rectt/Medium/107/2014/10603, Dated 16.07.2014 will be rejected.
Page No. 56In all such cases, the Committee shall prepare a list of Rejected candidates for Lower Primary as per prescribed Format 2 shown at Annexure 2. The list (SOFT and HARD copy), after being duly signed in every page by the Committee chairman and members, shall be handed over to the MD, SSA.
Mission Director, SSA, Assam reserves the right to further verify/authenticate the lists received from the District Level Screening cum Verification Committee if so required. A State Medical Board will further cause physical verification of the physically disabled candidates if so required. The State Mission Office will prepare and issue the select list in the official website of SSA. Engagement letter will be issued by State Mission Office and placement will be given to selected candidates against the posts identified maintaining PTR under RTE norms. It will be the endeavor of SSA to place the selected candidates in the district as opted for by them. However, SSA reserves the right to post the selected teachers in a district other than the one opted for if need be, according to PTR-RTE norms.
The above Guideline prepared by SSA in this connection is to be followed during the process of selection and engagement of SSA teachers on contractual basis as per the sanction of posts in SSA Annual budged as advertised.
(L. S Changsan, IAS) Mission Director, Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission Kahilipara Guwahati-19 No. No.SSA/Esstt(TT)/Rectt/Medium/107/2014/ Dated 23rd July, 2014.
District: Format-1 Annexure-1 List of Eligible Candidates for Assistant Teacher, Lower Primary as verified by District Level Screening cum Verification Committee In response to the advertisement No. SSA/Esstt(TT)/Rectt/Medium/107/2014/10603, Dated 16.07.2014.
Sl Applicantio Name Male/F Name of TET Date Age on Age Category PH (Specify Marks Total % of % of Marks Total % Total 10 10 Marks 10 Total Remarks
No n No. of emale Language- Roll of 01.01.201 Condonatio (GEN, if obtaine Marks marks marks obtaine Marks of out mark for marks Marks (Please
. the I No. Birth 4 n on Code, SC, ST-P, d in in obtaine obtaine d in marks of s for participatio for out Mention
Candidates (Medium) if any ST-H,
'yes) (only) HSSLC HSSLC d in d in in D.El.Ed/ in 300 [ NCC n in achievement of if
OBC, Orthopedical HSSLC TET D.El.Ed/ PSTE D.El.Ed/ 14+1 'C' recognised in 330 candidate
MOBC ly PSTE PSTE 5+18 Certifi sports at Fine [14+ has
Handicappe ] cate National Arts 15+ passed
d) (5 Level and Cultural 18+ the
mark representin Activities 20+ TET
s if g Assam representing 21+ on
'B' the 22] Graduati
Certifi State on
cate officially at criteria
holde national without
r) Level having
required
%age
in HSSLC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
21. In the State's affidavit filed in WPC No. 5572/2017 referring to the Guidelines dated 23.07.2014 and the selection process adopted, the Department contended that the petitioners' contention that their cases were not considered on the ground that they are being graduate and that they did not get 50% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination were not admitted. The respondent authority i.e. Mission Director, SSA, Assam contended that guidelines in this regard were issued vide Notification No. SSA/Esstt/ (TT)Rectt/Medium/107/2014/10957 dated 23.07.2014 for selection of Assistant Teacher on contractual basis under SSA in 6 (six) districts including Karimganj district. The guidelines were prepared on the basis of Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) (Amendment) Rules 2012 notified vide Notification No. PMA.448/2011/52 dated 20.10.2012 and following the said Rules laid down by the Government, Districts Level Screening Committee was constituted in all of 6 districts and each committee submitted its report before the State Mission Office for preparing merit list of the candidates. Appearing in the TET examination and recruitment for the posts of Assistant Teachers are two separate processes. The Department contended that Graduate degree is only the entry level qualification for appearing in TET at Lower Primary Level for those who could not secure 50% marks in HSSLC. However, for recruitment of teachers for lower primary school level, there is no provision for assignment of marks against graduate degree obtained while preparing the select list of candidates on merit. For recruitment of Lower Primary School teacher, HSSLC is the minimum requisite qualification as per the NCTE guidelines and State Rules. Out of the total marks of 330 for selection of Lower Primary Teacher, 100 marks was allotted to HSSLC or Equivalent Examination, 100 marks allotted to TET, 100 marks allotted to 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education including 2 years PSTE Diploma in Special Education or other professional qualifications as notified by NCTE as per RTE Act 2009, 10 marks for NCC "C" Certificate (5 marks if "B" Certificate holder), 10 marks for participation in recognized sports at National Level representing Assam, 10 marks for achievement in Fine, Arts and Cultural Activities representing the State officially at National Level.
22. Accordingly the merit list of all the candidates including the petitioners of Karimganj District were prepared on the basis of the marks scored in the above mentioned examinations or achievements. The Department contended that recruitment qualifications for appearing in the TET examinations and recruitment process are two separate processes. But the petitioners have mixed up both the issues in the petition. The respondent Department contended that the recruitment process was conducted strictly on the basis of guidelines as notified vide No. SSA/Esstt(TT)Rectt/Medium/107/2014/10957 dated 23.07.2014 read with the guidelines of NCTE (National Council of Teacher Education). The Department contended that for recruitment of teachers in Lower Primary Section, there is no provision for assignment of marks against graduate degree while preparing the select list of the candidates on merit as per the requisite academic qualifications in the NCTE Notifications as well as State Rules as stated above. Once the documents of the candidates were verified by the District Level Screening cum Verification Committee, it assessed the merit of the applicants by taking into consideration the academic record, professional qualification, TET scores for preparation of merit list of the candidates as per the guidelines dated 23.07.2014.
23. The Department contended that the candidates was prepared accordingly including Karimganj District on the basis of total marks scored by each candidates in the manner provided for by the guidelines. The Department contended that to bring about transparency in the process of selection of teachers, the selection of the candidates were made strictly in order of merit as per aforesaid notification/guidelines dated 23.07.2014 and no deviation was made therefrom.
24. The consistent stand of the respondents is that the selection was conducted strictly in terms of the provisions of 1977 Rules read with the RTE Act, 2009 and NCTE guidelines issued from time to time and it is seen that on the basis of the guidelines dated 23.07.2014 issued by the Department, the selection was conducted. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioners were not selected as they failed to satisfy the requirement of having obtained 50% in their Senior/Higher Secondary examinations. As per the said guidelines, there was no provision to a lot any marks for graduate degrees obtained by the petitioners. Consequently, the respondent authorities did not consider the candidatures of the petitioners as they failed to obtain 50% marks in their Senior/Higher Secondary Examination.
25. It is also evident from the pleaded case of the petitioners that the petitioners had abandoned their claim for selection and appointment in response to the earlier Advertisement dated 12.02.2012. The present claim of the petitioners in the connected writ petitions pertain to the selection and appointment in response to the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014. The Advertisement dated 16.07.2014 is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition No. 8068/2019 (pages 37-44). At serial No. 4 of the advertisement dated 16.07.2014, the name of Post and Qualification is mentioned. And at serial No. 7 the procedure of selection is mentioned. The same are extracted below:-
4. Name of Post and Qualification:-
Category of Posts Essential Qualification and experiences Salary Assistant As per 50% in Higher Secondary (or its Teachers for Govt.
equivalent). 5% relaxation for Lower Primary Norms.
SC/ST/OBC/MOBC and Physically Schools handicapped (Orthopedically) candidates with TET (Elementary) passed; or Graduate degree from UGC recognized University with TET (Elementary) passed.
Preference will be given to those who have 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education from recognized institutes and those who have 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (Special Education) qualification from RCI recognized institutes.
******* ********
7. The procedure of selection shall as per Government Rules.
Marks obtained by the Candidates in TET (Elementary), academic qualification examination and professional qualification examination and excellence in NCC, (B/C certificates) excellence at State Level Sports, cultural activities will be taken in consideration for preparing the district wise select list.
26. As noted above, the challenge of the petitioners rejection of their candidatures in response to the earlier advertisement dated 12.02.2014 in the earlier round of litigation was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2015. This Hon'ble Court disposed of the said writ petition with the finding that " there is no dispute at the bar that in case of graduate candidates getting, 50% marks in Higher Secondary is not necessary. The first qualification of getting 50% mark in Higher Secondary Examination is disjuncted from a qualification of U.G.C. recognised Universities with TET (medium specific) passed by; "and/or ". This being the position, the authority is clearly fell in error in presuming the present petitioners to be ineligible to the posts of Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary Schools under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA)" and further directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and make them eligible, by condoning their age, if required.
27. A perusal of the order dated 02.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 6879/2014 and order dated 20.03.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 1541/2015 and WP(C) No. 1546/2015 by the two Single Benches of this Hon'ble Court reveal that the Gazette notifications issued by the NCTE from time to time laying down the essential minimum qualifications for being eligible for selection and appointment for the posts of Lower Primary Teachers were not placed before this Hon'ble Court by either party during the earlier proceedings. The notifications issued by the NCTE laying down the mandatory eligibility qualifications and experiences were never brought up for consideration before this Hon'ble Court during the earlier proceedings. The short case projected by the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation was that the SSA authorities insisted upon the requirement of 50% marks in the Higher Secondary although the petitioners were graduates and thereby their candidatures were rejected. Consequently, there was no occasion by this Court to deal with the requirement of the minimum qualifications by the petitioners in terms of the Notifications issued by the NCTE from time to time.
28. In the present proceedings, it is seen that the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014 issued by the authority concerned did not completely subscribe to the norms mandated by the NCTE by their notifications duly published in the Gazette of India. The advertisement dated 16.07.2014 insofar as the Minimum Eligibility Criteria is concerned, evidently deviates from the criteria laid down by the NCTE by its Notifications. It is also noticed upon due perusal of the pleadings that the writ petitioners never questioned the notifications issued by the NCTE prescribing the minimum eligibility and experiences required for the posts of Assistant Teacher in the Lower Primary Section. It is also not the claim of the petitioners that they were not aware that such conditions were notified in the Gazette by the NCTE as being mandatory minimum qualifications necessary for being eligible for consideration for selection and subsequent appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Lower Primary Section. As such, it is evident that the petitioners were all along aware of such minimum eligible qualifications laid down by NCTE.
29. The petitioners are trying to project a case of accrual of a right under the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014 having offered their candidatures and are therefore agitating for their vested rights/claims which according to the petitioners accrued under the Advertisement dated 23.07.2014. They have also not brought out before this Court any such case/cases where others similarly situated candidates such as the petitioners have been considered for appointment under the said advertisement by the State Authorities while rejecting the claims of the petitioners. The petitioners have also not contended that the persons who are selected and appointed pursuant to the said advertisement are similarly situated like the petitioners. Accordingly the claims of the petitioners in the present petition that marks are required to be awarded by the respondent authorities during the selection process, for their graduate qualifications without insisting upon the requirement of or in lieu of 50% in their Higher/Senior Secondary examinations as the same is a higher qualification than Higher Secondary or Senior Secondary amounts to violation of the provisions of the Rules, are wholly misplaced in view of the selection process adopted by the SSA on the basis of their guidelines. The process of selection adopted by the state authorities cannot be faulted with on mere unsupported asseveration.
30. The Notification dated 23rd August 2010 issued by the NCTE laid down the Minimum Qualifications necessary for being eligible for consideration as Teachers for Primary and Upper Primary Section i.e. Classes I to V as :-
2 " Minimum Qualifications.-
(ii) Classes I-V (Lower Primary)
(c) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4- year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND
(d) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
31. Thereafter the same was amended by Notification dated 29 th July 2011 and which notification is strongly relied upon by the petitioners. As per the said notification dated 29.07.2011 the minimum qualifications are (as amended):-
2. Minimum Qualifications
(ii) Classes I-V
(c) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Education (Special Education).
OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known).
AND Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
32. A perusal of these notifications reveal that the NCTE did not at any point in time notify that Graduation alone with or without TET qualifications will or can also be considered sufficient for selection and appointment as Teachers in Lower/Upper Primary sections. In the Notification dated 23.8.2010, qualification of "Graduation" was not even included as a minimum qualification for Lower/Upper Primary Teachers. Consequently, it cannot be construed that graduates having TET qualifications like the petitioners satisfy the requirement of minimum qualification in-lieu of 50% marks in Senior/Higher Secondary examinations.
Upon a plain reading such an interpretation cannot be ascribed to the Notification dated 23 rd August 2010. Similarly, under the Notification dated 29.07.2011 also it is seen that minimum qualifications notified as amended is not mere Graduation but Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) and a Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
33. As such under the Notification dated 29.07.2011, it is not mere graduation which is sufficient to be treated as satisfying as Minimum Qualification. It is categorically provided that it must be 'Graduation and two year Diploma Elementary Education '(by whatever name know)'. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they are graduates and they also possess "Two year Diploma in Elementary Education" as prescribed as the minimum qualifications vide Notification dated 29.07.2011. Rather their consistent plea is that they do not possess 50% in their Senior/Higher Secondary examinations, but however possess Graduate degree from UGC recognized Universities with TET qualifications and therefore the requirement of 50% in the Senior/Higher Secondary ought not to be made applicable on insisted upon in respect of the petitioners. The SSA authorities should, therefore, consider them eligible and allot marks for their graduate qualifications during the selection process. They have also not projected any case or referred any circular/Notification of the Government/NCTE whereby the requirement of "Two year Diploma in Elementary Education"
has been relaxed by the authorities during the currency of the recruitment process in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014.
34. In view of the above discussions above it is evident that the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014 issued by the SSA was not strictly in conformity with the expressed/published norms laid down by the NCTE and which are mandatorily required to be followed by the Government of Assam. As per Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009, it is only the Central Government who is empowered to relax the minimum qualifications for teachers laid down by NCTE, if it deems necessary, upon any request as may be made by the State Government in a situation where the State Government does not have adequate number of institutions offering Courses or Training in teacher education. Barring the said exception under Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009, there is no other provision under the Act of 2009 or the Act of 1993, which permits such relaxation of Minimum Qualifications as laid down for teachers. It is also not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the Government of Assam/Central Government has relaxed/modified the minimum qualifications earlier laid down by NCTE vide Notification dated 29.07.2011 to provide for graduation only alongwith TET Qualifications as the minimum qualifications for Lower Primary Teachers. Consequently, the Notifications issued by the NCTE including the Notification dated 29.07.2011 which is relevant for the purposes of the present proceedings, will prevail and will have to be given primacy in terms of Section 23 of the RTE Act 2009.
35. Accordingly, any deviation made in the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014 cannot override the expressed provisions and requirements notified by the NCTE vide Notification dated 29.07.2011. As such, there can be no vested claim or any accrued right which can arise under such Advertisement which admittedly does not completely subscribe to the mandate laid down by the Notification dated 29.07.2011 which was prevalent at the time when the advertisement was issued. Further as discussed above, these expressed norms/criteria were published regularly by the Government of India through its Gazette notification. It cannot be the case of the petitioners that the norms/criteria resorted to for selection of the candidates for the posts of Assistant Teacher, Lower Primary section, were not disclosed. The petitioners have also not put to challenge the norms issued by NCTE. Rather the petitioners have not explained how they claim to satisfy the norms published in the NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011 upon which they place strong reliance.
36. The accrual of any right of any candidate towards selection and appointment to any post under the Government will have to be determined keeping in view the parameters laid down in the Service Rules governing such recruitments. In view of the provisions of NCTE Act 1993, RTE Act 2009, all Notifications issued by NCTE will have to be given primacy in the arena of qualifications laid down for teachers and the process of selection of such teachers. The Supreme Court in a recent case relating to prescription of qualifications for recruitment of Teachers by the State Government held that State Government was under obligation to act as per notification issued by NCTE and not to give effect to any contrary rule. The Supreme Court in this case had the occasion to deal with inter alia the notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by NCTE, which is also relevant for the present proceedings. The question which arose in this case is that as the Central Government under section 23 of the RTE Act 2009 has the power to lay down eligibility conditions for appointment of teachers for elementary education, whether the NCTE could not lay down any guideline so as to affect the power of a state to prescribe norms for selection of a teacher consistent with the qualifications under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The Supreme Court held that the State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. The relevant paragraphs of the Judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors reported in (2018) 12 SCC 595 is extracted for ready reference :
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Main contention raised on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh is that while it was permissible for the Central Government to lay down eligibility qualifications for appointment of a teacher for elementary education by virtue of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the NCTE could not lay down any guideline so as to affect the power of a State to prescribe norms for selection of a teacher consistent with the qualifications under Section 23 of the RTE Act.
14. On the other hand, the stand of the original writ petitioners is that the subject of education falls under Schedule VII List III Entry 25 of the Constitution after the 42nd Amendment. Thus, by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution, the law made by Parliament prevails over any law made by the State. It was submitted that the NCTE Act has been enacted by Parliament to achieve "planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system". The Council constituted under the Act is empowered to issue guidelines under Sections 12 and 12-A for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and also to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher. Further, vide Notification dated 31-3-2010 under Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Central Government has authorised NCTE as the "academic authority" to lay down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
15. The learned counsel for NCTE submitted that notification dated 11-2-2011 suggesting weightage to TET marks was merely a guideline and was not intended to be binding on the States. While TET was a mandatory requirement, weightage to the marks in the TET was merely a suggestion. This stand has also been taken by some of the learned counsel in connected matters. Reliance was placed on the stand of the NCTE in its affidavit dated 1-5-2014 in CWP No. 346 of 2013 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as follows:
"That in view of the said recommendations of the Committee, it is stated that the guidelines contained in Clauses 10 and 11 of NCTE Guidelines dated 11-2-2011 are directory in nature. Appropriate Government may in its own wisdom decide as to the eligible candidates on the basis of having qualified the Central Teachers Eligibility Test. However, education being the subject-matter of the Concurrent List of the power to frame appropriate legislation/regulations/rules vests with the appropriate Legislature of the State Government and as such State Government is well within its rights to prescribe the qualification of eligibility in the form that the candidates wanting to apply for the said post must necessarily qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test of said State. There would be no legality in the same and merely because a State Government had failed to conduct the State Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) in a given year would not amount to taking a decision not to hold the exams and to hold the candidates having qualified Central Teacher Eligibility Test as eligible."
16. .................................................
17. There is no manner of doubt that NCTE, acting as an "academic authority" under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31-3-2010 issued by the Central Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12-A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23-8-2010 and 11-2-2011. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule.
However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that Notification dated 11-2-2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with.
Accordingly, while we uphold the view that
qualifications prescribed by NCTE are binding,
requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a
mandatory requirement.
(Emphasis by us)
37. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as above, the Notification dated 29.07.2011 laying down the essential minimum qualifications for seeking employment as a Lower/Upper Primary teacher will have to be given primacy. On a plain reading it is clear that the advertisement dated 16th July 2014 had deviated from the qualifications laid down in the Notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by NCTE in as much as in the Advertisement dated 16.07.2014, under the "Essential Qualification and Experience"; Graduate Degree from UGC recognized University with TET (Elementary) passed was also provided as alternative criteria. However the same is at variance with the criteria provided for by the Notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE. As per the said notification, candidates must have "graduation and two year diploma in Elementary Education". As stated above, it is not mere graduation along with TET which will make the petitioners eligible to enable them to stake any claim for any accrued/vested right. The petitioners have not stated anywhere in their pleadings that they have acquired the "Two year Diploma in elementary education" and thereby making them eligible as per the Notification dated 29.07.2011. The petitioners have insisted upon only the TET qualifications besides being graduates. Under the circumstances, besides not having 50% in their Higher/Senior Secondary, they also do not have the Two Year Diploma in Elementary Education as required under the NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011. As such their contention that they are eligible as per the Notification dated 29.07.2011 is incorrect on facts and therefore misplaced.
38. The Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507 held that "Recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance to the Rules and error if any cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules" The relevant paragraphs are extracted below for ready reference:-
21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules.
The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.
(Emphasised by us)
22. The Rules postulate timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filling of vacancies for a long time, deprives the people of the services of the judicial officers. This is one of the reasons of huge pendency of cases in the courts.
23. It is absolutely necessary to evolve a mechanism to speedily determine and fill vacancies of judges at all levels. For this purpose, timely steps are required to be taken for determination of vacancies, issue of advertisement, conducting examinations, interviews, declaration of the final results and issue of orders of appointments. For all these and other steps, if any, it is necessary to provide for fixed time schedule so that the system works automatically and there is no delay in filling up of vacancies. The dates for taking these steps can be provided for on the pattern similar to filling of vacancies in some other services or filling of seats for admission in medical colleges. The schedule appended to the regulations governing medical admissions sets out a time schedule for every step to be strictly adhered to every year. The exception can be provided for where sufficient number of vacancies do not occur in a given year. The adherence to strict time schedule can ensure timely filling of vacancies. All the State Governments, the Union Territories and/or the High Courts are directed to provide for time schedule for the aforesaid purposes so that every year vacancies that may occur are timely filled. All the State Governments, the Union Territories and the High Courts are directed to file within three months details of the time schedule so fixed and date from which the time schedule so fixed would be operational.
24. Now, to the present case, the only dispute is in respect of the age requirement. The resolution of the dispute would depend upon implementation of Rule 10 of the Rules. According to the main part of Rule 10, the minimum and maximum age requirement has to be as on 1st July next following the year in which the notification for holding the examination by PSC inviting applications is published. That publication inviting applications is dated 22/28-11-2003. The next following year is "2004".
Therefore, on the plain reading of the main part of Rule 10, the age requirement is to be seen as on 1-7-2004.
25. .........................
26. ..........................
27. According to Rule 4(m), the year of recruitment means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year in which the process of recruitment is initiated by the appointing authority. The appointing authority within the meaning of the Rules means the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, in other words, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. As already noted above, the process of recruitment was initiated on 23-11- 2002. The determination of vacancies and procedure for recruitment to the service has been provided for in Rule 15. After the vacancies are determined, the same are required to be intimated to the Commission to be filled in during the year of recruitment. That process commenced by sending communication dated 23-11-2002. The second and third communications dated 29- 7-2003 and 11-11-2003 by the Government to PSC were in continuation of the first one. The advertisement was published on 22/28-11-2003 after the third communication. The relevant year for the main part of Rule 10 is the one next following the year in which the publication for holding the examination is published. It would be 1-7-2004. For the purpose of the proviso, the recruitment year is 1-7-2002 to 30-6-2003 and age requirement therein would be as on 1-7-2002 in view of Rule 4(m) read with Rule 10 second proviso. Thus, those who were of requisite age as on 1-7-2002 would be eligible under the second proviso and also those who were of requisite age as on 1-7-2004 as per the main part of Rule
10. However, it seems difficult to comprehend how candidates of requisite age on 1-7-2001 would be eligible for the recruitment in question. Though Rule 10 is not happily worded yet we find it difficult to sustain the conclusion of the High Court that the advertisement issued on 22/28-11-2003 can be assumed to be issued before 31-12-2002. The interpretation of Rule 10 placed by us is also in accord with the object of the Rules.
39. The above view was also reiterated by the Supreme Court in another subsequent case - Ashish Kumar -Vs- State of U.P. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55.
27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission [Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1870] . Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 512) "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules."
(Emphasis by us)
40. The petitioners have also not explained as to why the advertisement dated 23.07.2014 along with the guidelines also dated 23.07.2014 issued by SSA, were not challenged before the Court knowing fully well that the same did not completely subscribe to the criteria/parameter published by the Government of India and the NCTE and which are duly required to be followed by the Government of Assam. Neither is it the pleaded case of the petitioners that the NCTE Notifications were not binding upon the State Government/SSA. The petitioners rather participated in the selection process initiated by the said advertisement being fully aware of the criteria set forth by the Act/Rules without any demur. It is only after participation and the petitioners not having being selected that they have turned around to challenge it.
41. A perusal of the facts involved in the present proceedings, as narrated will reveal that the petitioners grievances are not directed against the minimum qualification and experiences notified by the NCTE nor are there any allegations of bias or malice against the selection conducted by the respondent authorities. The petitioners' specific grievance is that although they are graduates from UGC recognized Colleges, the authorities have not assigned/allotted any marks towards their graduate degrees but have insisted on the compliance of the requirement of 50% marks of Higher/Senior Secondary/HSSLC. According to the petitioners, such insistence is highly arbitrarily and unjust because graduation being a higher degree than Higher/Senior Secondary/HSSLC, their non-fulfillment of the requirement of 50% in Higher/Senior Secondary/HSSLC ought not to have been used as a ground for rejection of their candidatures in the selection. It is the petitioners' contention that if adequate marks were allotted towards their graduate qualifications during the selection process then non-fulfillment of the requirement of 50% in Higher/Senior Secondary/HSSLC would not have come in the way of their selection as eligible candidates in response to the Advertisement dated 23.07.2014.
42. In exercise of Judicial Review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, any challenge to administrative decisions can be sustained only if such a decision was illegal or it has suffered from some procedural impropriety or that it was so irrational in the sense that it defies established, logic or moral standards. An Administrative decision can also be scrutinized to see whether it was absurd or perverse under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Writ Court while exercising its power under Judicial Review is only required to see the decision making process and not the decision itself. The Writ Court while exercising its power under Judicial Review does not interfere with any decision because a decision is not perfect. A Writ Court will not sit as if in appeal over the decision taken by the Administrative Authority. A Writ Court will only interfere if it is a decision, which no reasonable man would have taken and/or it results in manifest-in-justice. The grounds on which the challenge is sought to be made by the petitioners calling into question the decisions taken by the respondent authorities in rejecting the candidatures of the petitioners in the selection process undertaken, if permitted, will amount to laying down of parameters for selection by this Court in exercise of its powers under Judicial Review, which is not permissible.
43. As discussed above in the facts of this case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any of their Fundamental Rights and/or some Legal Rights or the performance of any Legal Duties by the respondents authorities have been violated and/or not complied with and thereby depriving the rights of the candidates under the Constitution and the Laws framed thereunder or resulting in manifest injustice. The Schedule- I and the marking system provided under the said Schedule-I which has been assailed cannot be taken out of context and read in isolation. 'Minimum Qualification' is defined under Rule 3(iii) of the Rules of 1977. It is provided thereunder that Minimum Qualification shall be as per notifications issued by the State Government from time to time in conformity with NCTE norms. In case of any relaxation required in respect of qualifications as prescribed by NCTE from time to time, the State Government shall take up the matter with the Government of India for such relaxation. Admittedly, no such relaxation of Minimum Qualification has been sought for by the State Government and/or granted by the Central Government prior to the selection process. The standards and the requirements of minimum qualifications for teachers for Lower Primary Teacher for their selection as laid down by the Central Government and the NCTE therefore cannot be deviated from. For the grievances of the petitioners even to be considered and accepted that marks for their graduate qualifications ought to have been allotted by the respondent authorities, they will have satisfy that they fulfill the requirement of the criteria laid down by the NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011, which they admittedly do not. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim for any right let alone vested rights, if they fail to satisfy the requirement of fulfillment of minimum eligibility qualifications as laid down by the NCTE/Notification dated 29.07.2011. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision of the respondent authorities impugned are illegal, irrational or that it suffers from any procedural irregularities/impropriety or that it is perverse or absurd. Accordingly, it is the considered view of this Court that the petitioners have failed to satisfy this Court for invoking its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of any Writ as prayed for. In the context of Judicial Review under Article 226, a recent judgment of the Apex Court reiterating the extent of the powers of Judicial Review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very pertinent.
44. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the Case West Bengal Central School Service Commission -Vs- Abdul Halim reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 902 is as under:-
"28. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
29. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the respondents of a legal duty.
30. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities.
31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari.
32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse.
33. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect."
45. At this stage, it is also necessary to refer to the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his arguments and contentions. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chandrakala Trivedi (supra) to put forth his contention that in similar circumstance the Supreme Court intervened with the actions of the state public service commission rejecting the candidature of a candidate who was earlier provisionally selected. In the said case the appellant therein - Smt. Chandrakala Trivedi initially provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Teacher for primary and upper primary school, in the state of Rajasthan. The educational qualification required for appointment to the post of a Level-II upper primary middle school Teacher was - "Senior Secondary School certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent and .......". The appellant at the time of her provisional selection had passed the Secondary Examination and it was permissible for a candidate passing secondary examination to get admission in higher classes with a preparatory course. The appellant thereafter completed her graduation from Indira Gandhi Open University. The appellant also obtained her B.Ed and MA degree from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer, Rajasthan. The appellant therefore contented that she satisfies the criteria of the required qualification for appointment to the post and assailed the cancellation of her provisional appointment by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the ground that she did not fulfill the criteria. On the special facts and circumstances of the case the Supreme court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant by interfering with the cancellation of her provisional appointment. The Supreme Court held that the word "equivalent" ought to have been given a reasonable meaning with some degree of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement, more so in the case of a candidate who was provisionally appointed on the basis of submission of her requisite testimonials.
46. Upon due perusal it is seen that this judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioners as the facts involved in the case are different from the facts in the present proceedings. In the case of Chandrakala Trivedi (supra) the Supreme Court interfered with the order impugned essentially on the special facts and circumstances of the case, because the appellant therein was initially given provisional appointment to the post of a teacher and which was subsequently cancelled by the State Public Service Commission as she did not pass the Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination after passing the secondary examination. The Supreme Court intervened as the appellant therein was given her provisional appointment after she had submitted her requisite testimonials at the time of her selection for provisional appointment.
47. In the present proceedings, none of the petitioners were provisionally appointed at any point in time. The facts involved in the present petitioners' cases are completely different from those in the case law cited above by the petitioners. The petitioners are seeking to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction for a direction to the state authorities to allot marks during the selection process in respect of their graduate decrees obtained because they admittedly did not secure 50% in their Higher Secondary examinations. They have also questioned the legality of the Schedule-I appended to Rule 3(vi)(a) of the Rules of 1977, as it does not provide for allotment of marks for Graduate Degrees. However, such prayers cannot be allowed in view of the discussions above. Such directions will amount to the High Court laying down the parameters for selection which is not permissible in law in the given facts and circumstances of the present proceedings. The Supreme Court has time and again dealt with matters pertaining interferences in selection process to lay down the law firmly that Writ Courts while exercising jurisdictions as such cannot function as appellate authorities sitting in appeal over decisions of selections made by the government or their agencies. It is only in cases of clear arbitrariness or malice established causing manifest injustice that a Writ Court is required to intervene in such selections. Merely because the parameters of selection are not favourable to the candidates will not be a ground to seek invocation of the Writ powers. There must be an established case on facts of discrimination, arbitrariness and/ or violation of the Rules of procedure so as to permit issuance of any Writ under the extraordinary powers of this Court. In the facts of the present proceedings, such discriminately arbitrariness and/or violation of any Rules of procedure could not be made out by the petitioners.
48. On a pointed query made to the State Counsel it is submitted that that the select list was published and the selected candidates have also, in the meantime, been appointed. The said selected candidates as on date are not arrayed as party respondents in the present proceedings.
49. In view of the above discussions, we find no infirmity in the Schedule-1 of the Rule 3(vi)(a) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977. Accordingly, WP(C) No. 8068/2019 is devoid of any merit and the same is therefore dismissed.
50. Also in view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, we also find no merits in WP(C) No. 5572/2017, WP(C) No. 7147/2017 and WP(C) No. 7387/2017.
51. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Parties are left to bear the cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant