Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/39 vs The Principal Secretary To The Govt Of ... on 13 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/39
GAHC010005672024
2025:GAU-AS:2703
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/217/2024
MANTU DEKA AND ANR
S/O- SRI MAHESH DEKA,
R/O- 112, MUKALMUA GARGA ROAD,
309 PATTA, DISTRICT- NALBARI,
P.S- MUKALMUA, P.O. -MUKALMUA,
PIN- 781126, ASSAM.
2: MUJITAR RAHMAN
S/O- MAKIB ALI
R/O- VILLAGE- MUKALMUA
P.S.- MUKALMUA
P.O.- MUKALMUA
PIN- 781126
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
Page No.# 2/39
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. D. BORAH,MR. M SARMA,MS.
ANASUYA C,MR P BHARDWAJ
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU,
Linked Case : WP(C)/7272/2022
HITESH THAKURIA AND 42 ORS
S/O-BENUDHAR THAKURIA
R/O- VILL-DEOCHAR
P.O.- PANERY
P.S.- BOKO
DIST- KAMRUP(R )
ASSAM
PIN-781123
2: HEMANGA DAS
S/O- BHABESH DAS
R/O-VILL AND P.O.-BONGAIGAON
P.S.-BONGAIGAON
DIST-BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783380
3: RATUL BHARALI
S/O- LT. BASUDEV BHARALI
R/O- DOLOIGAON
P.O. NORTH BONGAIGAON
P.S. BONGAIGAON
DIST.- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 783380
4: PARTHA PROTIM GOGOI
S/O-JIBOKANTA GOGOI
R/O-VILL-108 NO. KHOWANG GRANT
P.O.-TILOI NAGAR
P.S.-MORAN
DIST- DIBRUGARH
Page No.# 3/39
ASSAM
PIN-785675
5: JAYANTAJEET CHETIA
S/O- KUKHESWAR CHETIA
R/O- TILOINAGAR JYOTIPUR
P.O.-TILOINAGAR
P.S.-MORAN
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-785675.
6: S NEENGTAM SANA SINGHA
S/O- LATE MANGAL SANA SINGHA
R/O-VILL-CHENGBIL
P.O.- MADARIPAR
P.S.-LALA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788163
7: MITHUN DEB
S/O-NRIPENDRA CHANDRA DEB
R/O-VILL-RONGPUR
PART II
P.S.-KATLICHERA
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161.
8: SAMIM AHMED LASKAR
S/O- MD. NAZRUL HAQUE LASKAR
R/O-WARD NO. IV
VILL-HAILAKANDI TOWN
P.O. AND P.S.-HAILAKANDI
DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788161
9: AMBIYA BEGUM
D/O- AZIZUR RAHMAN
R/O- VILL- KALDOBA PT-I
P.O.- AGOMANI
P.S.-AGOMANI
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783335
Page No.# 4/39
10: RAJIB KHAN
S/O- LT. ABDUL GONI
R/O- NOTBOMA
P.O.- HOUSEFED
P.S.-HATIGAON
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-782142
11: RUPASHREE SINHA
S/O-MONI KANTA SINHA
R/O-BARBARI MILAN NAGAR
P.O.-HENGRABARI LP SCHOOL
P.S.-DISPUR
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781036
12: BINITA DEKA
D/O-DENESH DEKA
R/O-VILL- BORI
P.O.- BORI
P.S.- BELSOR
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781338
13: SAROJ ROY
S/O-KAMESWAR ROY
R/O- DARUPARA
PUTHIMARI
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781325
14: CHINTUMONI NATH
S/O-GOBINDA CHANDRA NATH
R/O- KV NARENGI
NO.1 TALTALA KALITAKUCHI
AMSING NC
P.O.-SATGAON
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781027
15: HASANUR ISLAM MONDOL
Page No.# 5/39
S/O- ABU HASAN MONDOL
R/O- 632 BIDYAPARA
RAILWAY STATION ROAD
WARD NO.9
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301
16: ABU HASSAN
S/O- JAMAL UDDIN AHMED
R/O- BIDYANAGAR GARIGAON
P.S.- JALUKBARI
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781012
17: JIREN RONGPEE
S/O-JUGEN RONGPEE
R/O-BIRKUCHI KARBI DEHAL PATH
NARENGI
P.O.- NARENGI
P.S.-NOONMATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
PIN-781026
18: NITAM MAZUMDAR
S/O-UMESH MAZUMDAR
R/O-BIRUBARI SANKARPUR
P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR
P.S.-AMBARI FATASHIL
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781016
19: HIRAKJYOTI BAISHYA
S/O-SIRISH CHANDRA BAISHYA
R/O-VILL- PACHARIA
P.O.- PACHARIA
P.S.- HAJO
DIST- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN-781104
20: KAMAL KUMAR BARMAN
S/O-AKSHAY CHANDRA BARMAN
UDAYAN VIHAR
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
Page No.# 6/39
PIN-781171
21: PRANAMI BEZBARUAH
D/O-KULEN CHANDRA DAS
R/O- 32 BIRUKUCHI
NEAR ASSAMESE LP SCHOOL
NARENGI
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781026
22: MURSIDA BEGUM
D/O-ABU EUSUF MD. HASAN
R/O- VILL- CHAPAR
P.O.- CHAPAR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783371
23: MOSTAFIZUL HOQUE
S/O- NURUL HOQUE
R/O- HOUSE NO. 100
KURSHAKATI ROAD
KURSHAKARI MASJID
RANIGANJ
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783345
24: SIMANTA THAKURIA
S/O-AKAN CHANDRA THAKURIA
R/O- NEW AIRPORT ROAD
BHAKTOBORI
GARAL
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM-781017
25: JAYANTA KUMAR DAS
S/O KANAK DAS
R/O- NEW AIRPORT
BHAKTABORI
P.O.-BHATTAPARA
P.S.- AZARA
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781017
Page No.# 7/39
26: IMRAN KHAN
S/O- MOHAMMAD SULEMAN ALI
R/O-VILL- BORIGAON
P.O.- SOLMARI
P.S.- MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782104
27: GUNAJIT BARMAN
S/O-KARUNA BARMAN
R/O-VILLAGE/TOWN
POST OFFICE- BHOJKUCHI
POLICE STATION- TIHU
PIN- 781374
DISTRICT- NALBARI
STATE- ASSAM.
28: DULAL HALOI
S/O-BINOD HALOI
R/O-VILLAGE/TOWN- HARIBHANGA
POST OFFICE- HARIBHNAGA
POLICE STATION- TIHU
PIN- 781378
DISTRICT- NALBARI
STATE- ASSAM
29: SONESWAR RAMCHIARY
S/O-PRABHAT RAMCHIARY
R/O-VILL- SARUKUCHIJHAR PO- MEDAGHAT PS- BARAMA DIST- BAKSA
PIN- 781355
30: DIPANKAR SEAL
S/O-LATE BHARAT SEAL
R/O-VILL-MAKHIBAHA
POST OFFICE- MAKHIBAHA
POLICE STATION- TIHU
DISTRICT- NALBARI
STATE- ASSAM
PIN- 781374
31: RANJU BARMAN
S/O- ARUN BARMAN
R/O- VILLAGE/TOWN- BHOJKUCHI
POST OFFICE- BHOJKUCHI
POLICE STATION- TIHU
DISTRICT- NALBARI
STATE- ASSAM
Page No.# 8/39
PIN- 781374
32: NAYANMANI THAKURIA
S/O- BHAGYADHAR THAKURIA
R/O- VILLAGE/TOWN- 2 NO SUBANSRI
POST OFFICE- NARAYANPUR
POLICE STATION- MUSHALPUR
DISTRICT- BAKSA
STATE- ASSAM
PIN- 781372
33: DEVID ROY
S/O- GIRIDHAR ROY
R/O- VILLAGE/TOWN- SINGRA
POST OFFICE- GARARTARI
POLICE STATION- SARTHEBARI
DISTRICT- BARPETA
STATE- ASSAM
PIN- 781311
34: PULAK BASUMATARY
S/O- BHABEN BASUMATARY
R/O- VILLAGE/TOWN- BEBEJIAPARA (BARAMCHARI)
POST OFFICE- BARAMCHARI
POLICE STATION- MUSHALPUR
DISTRICT- BAKSA
STATE- ASSAM
PIN- 781355
35: MANAJIT BARMAN
S/O-KARUNA BARMAN
R/O-VILLAGE/TOWN- BHOJKUCHI
POST OFFICE- BHOJKUCHI
POLICE STATION- TIHU
PIN- 781374
DISTRICT- NALBARI
STATE- ASSAM
36: PANNA RAY
S/O-MANTOSH RAY
R/O- HADIGAON
P.O.- TUKURA
P.S.- AGIA DIST-GOALPARA
DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783126.
37: DEBAJEET BORMAN
Page No.# 9/39
S/O-BIJOY BORMAN
R/O-VILL- BALIJAN
P.O. AND P.S.- AGIA DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-
783101
38: BISWAJIT RAY
S/O- CHIRAN RAY
R/O-DALOKAGIA
P.O. AND P.S.- AGIA
DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783101
39: MRIGEN SARMA BARDOLOI
S/O LT PRABHAT CH. BARDOLOI
R/O NEAR BARDIGHELI VILLAGE DIGHELI
P.O.- BARDIGHELI
P.S.- NALBARI PIN- 781335
40: CHAKRADHAR DAS
S/O SUBHARAM DAS
R/O VILLAGE-NIZNAMATI
P.O.-NIZNAMATI
DISTRICT- NALBARI
P.S.-TIHU
PIN-781335
41: UMASANKAR SARMA
S/O JOYTISH SARMA
R/O GANDHIYA
VILL-GANDHIYA
P.O-GANDHIYA
P.S. BELSOR
DISTRICT-NALBARI
PIN-781338
42: BHASKAR BARMAN
S/O PRAMOD BARMAN
R/O VILL-BHIMALPUR
P.O/-BHIMALPUR
P.S. BELSOR
DISTRICT-NALBARI
PIN-781338
Page No.# 10/39
43: PANKAJ DAS
S/O GOBINDA DAS
VILL-BARIDIGHELI
P.O.-DIGHELI
P.S. NALBARI
DISTRICT-NALBARI
PIN-781335
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT
GUWHATI-781006.
3:THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019
5:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
DIRECTORATE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019
6:THE ASSAM ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
(AMTRON)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-781019
7:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION
FOR CLASS III POSTS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
Page No.# 11/39
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-781022
8:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION
FOR CLASS IV POSTS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-781022
9:THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-781021
------------
Advocate for : MR. K GOSWAMI
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/7269/2021
MRIGEN BORBARUAH AND 3 ORS
S/O- ROBIN BORBORUAH
R/O- WARD NO. 13
RAJADHAP SONARI
P.O- SONARI
DIST- CHARAIDEO
PIN-785690
ASSAM
2: DEEPJYOTI GOGOI
S/O- PRANAB GOGOI
R/O- NARAYAN PATHAR GAON
P.O- BORHAT
DIST- CHARAIDEO
PIN-785693
ASSAM
3: RITUSMITA DUTTA
D/O- LATE BIREN CH. DUTTA
R/O- VILLAGE SUNDARPUR
P.O- JOYSAGAR
Page No.# 12/39
DIST-SIBASAGAR
PIN-785665 ASSAM
4: SADIKUR ROHMAN
S/O- ARFAN ALI
R/O- VILLAGE BAMUNBARI
P.O-DHOLEBAGAN
DIST- SIBSAGAR
PIN-785686
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ELEMENTARY)
GUWAHATI-06
ASSAM
3:THE DIRECTOR
OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
KAHIIPARA
GUWAHAT-19
------------
Advocate for : MR. M K CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
ELEM. EDU appearing for THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
ASSAM AND 2 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/5450/2022
BARNALI KALITA AND 2 ORS
DAUGHTER OF KANTA KALITA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PUB SANTI NAGAR
P.O.- KAHILIPARA
P.S.- DISPUR
Page No.# 13/39
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(METRO)
ASSAM- 781019.
2: SMT. BARNALI DEKA
DAUGHTER OF TANKESWAR DEKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAREGAON
KARARA
P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM- 781121.
3: SMT. DIPIKA DEKA
DAUGHTER OF ATUL CHANDRA DEKA
RESIDENT OF BAREGAON
KARARA
P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM- 781121.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019.
5:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
Page No.# 14/39
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
DIRECTORATE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019.
6:THE ASSAM ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
(AMTRON)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI- 781019.
7:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION FOR CLASS III POSTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022.
8:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION FOR CLASS IV POSTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI- 781022.
9:THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI- 781021.
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/336/2023
MRIGEN BORBARUAH AND 2 ORS
S/O- SRI ROBIN BORBORUAH
R/O- WARD NO. 13
RAJADHAP SONARI
P.O- SONARI
DIST- CHARAIDEO
PIN- 785690
Page No.# 15/39
ASSAM
2: DEEPJYOTI GOGOI
S/O- SRI PRANAB GOGOI
R/O- NARAYAN PATHAR GAON
P.O- BORHAT
DIST- CHARAIDEO
PIN- 785693
ASSAM
3: RITUSMITA DUTTA
D/O- LATE SRI BIREN CH DUTTA
R/O- VILL- SUNDARPUR
P.O- JOYSAGAR
DIST- SIVASAGAR
PIN- 785665
ASSSAM
VERSUS
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
EDUCATION DEPTT
DISPUR
GHY- 781006
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT
ASSAM
GHY- 781006
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019
------------
Advocate for : MR. M SARMA
Advocate for : SC
ELEM. EDU appearing for THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
Linked Case : WP(C)/8211/2022
RANU DAS AND 2 ORS
W/O- MAHENDRA BORAH
R/O- VILL- BENGENAATI
P.O. CHOTOHAIBAR
P.S. AND DIST.- NAGAON
Page No.# 16/39
PIN- 782003
2: BISWAJIT DAS
S/O- LT. SANTOSH DAS
VILL AND P.O. SILIGUR BASTI
DIST. AND P.S. HOJAI
PIN- 782435
3: ARUP HAZARIKA
S/O- LT. KALIA HAZARIKA
VILL- BOR RAIDONGIA
P.O. AIBHETI
P.S. JAJARI
DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM)
PIN- 782002
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
ASSAM
GHY-19
3:THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-06
4:THE STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY DIRECTORATE OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
5:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION
FOR CLASS III POSTS
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS SECY.
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
Page No.# 17/39
GHY-22
6:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION
FOR CLASS IV POSTS
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS SECY.
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE
JAWAHARNAGAR
KHANAPARA
GHY-22
7:BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM (SEBA)
GHY-21
------------
Advocate for : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for : SC
ELEM. EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT
Date : 13-03-2025
1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. M Das, learned counsel for WP(C) 217/2024, WP(C) No.5450/2022, Mr. M K Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.7269/2021 and Mr. D S Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.7272/2022, Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.8211/2022 and Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.336/2023.
2. These batches of writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal, as the cause of action for filing such writ petitions, the challenges made, and the issues involved are similar.
Page No.# 18/39
3. The petitioners are unemployed youth, and they participated in a selection process conducted by the Education Department for filling up Grade-III and Grade-IV posts by way of two advertisements dated 28.02.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Advertisements dated 28.02.2019).
4. Under the aforesaid advertisements, the petitioners applied against different categories i.e, Grade - III and Grade-IV, the details of which are not recorded herein, as it is not very relevant for the determination of the issues involved since the petitioners are aggrieved by a decision of the Special Commissioner of the Elementary Education Department, dated 09.11.2021, whereby, the recruitment process initiated under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019 was cancelled with a decision to start a fresh recruitment process including certain new vacancies.
5. Another challenge made in these writ petitions is an order dated 15.11.2021, passed by the Director of Elementary Education pursuant to the determination made by the Special Commissioner under the impugned order dated 09.11.2021.
6. Yet another challenge is the subsequent advertisement dated 25.03.2022, issued by the State Level Recruitment Commission for filling up of different Grade-III and Grade-IV posts, including the posts advertised under advertisements dated 28.02.2019.
7. To deal with the aforesaid challenges, let this court first record the essential facts in a nutshell.
I. On 28.02.2019 the Director of Elementary
Page No.# 19/39
Education issued two advertisements for filling up of various posts of Grade-III & Grade-IV respectively under the Department of Elementary Education, Assam. II. While the recruitment process was going on, WP(C) 2370/2020 was filed by some of the candidates challenging the recruitment process based on certain news paper reports that there were large-scale anomalies in the selection process. This court under its order dated 09.06.2020, passed in the said writ petition, directed the respondents not to publish any select list of Grade-IV. III. Another writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2699/2020 filed, in which, this court under its order dated 13.07.2020, though declined to restrain the respondent authorities from going ahead and finalizing the selection process, however, balancing the equities, asked the respondents not to publish the select list without leave of the court. IV. While the writ petitions were pending, on 04.09.2020, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in Elementary Education Department conveyed its approval to the Director, Elementary Education to publish the result of written examination to the post of Grade-III & Grade-IV as per the existing rules and procedures, taking leave of the court before publication of the select list. Thereafter, the Commissioner & Secretary, once again, instructed the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, that as the government has already granted approval, the Page No.# 20/39 Director should publish the result of the written examination, so that the entire recruitment process could be completed.
V. At that stage, some other candidates preferred a writ petition registered as WP(C) 226/2021, seeking a direction to declare the result of the written examination. This court, under its order dated 20.01.2021, asked the respondents to apprise the court about the status of the written examination held.
VI. At that stage, the writ petitions preferred alleging anomalies in the recruitment process (as recorded hereinabove) were allowed to be withdrawn by this court under its order dated 31.08.2021.
VII. Thereafter, the Director of Elementary Education by its impugned communication dated 24.05.2021, expressed certain apprehensions, (which will be dealt at later part of this judgment) and proposed to club all the existing vacancies of Grade-III & Grade-IV together under the Department of Elementary Education and to conduct a single recruitment drive by canceling the earlier advertisement.
VIII. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 09.11.2021, was passed by the Special Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, whereby advertisements dated 28.02.2019 were cancelled, with a view to start the recruitment process afresh incorporating Page No.# 21/39 any other vacant post of the same grade pay etc. IX. In view of the passing of such a speaking order, the writ petition seeking a declaration of result, i.e., WP(C) 226/2021, was closed by an order dated 11.11.2021, with liberty to the writ petitioners to approach this court. Some of the present petitioners were also writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. X. Thereafter, based on such speaking order, the Director of the Elementary Education Department, by the impugned communication dated 15.11.2021, cancelled the recruitment process in question and decided to start a fresh recruitment process for already advertised posts, including other vacant posts of the same grade and pay. It was also recorded in the aforesaid communication dated 15.11.2021, that the candidates who had applied and appeared in the written examination in pursuance of the advertisements dated 28.02.2019 need not apply again.
XI. WP(C) 7269/2021 is preferred by assailing the speaking order dated 09.11.2021, as well as the order dated 15.11.2021, with a prayer to set aside the aforesaid orders and bring the selection to a logical conclusion, which was initiated based on the advertisement dated 28.02.2019.
XII. Thereafter, the state legislature notified "The Assam Direct Recruitment Commission for Analogous post in Class - III & Class - IV Act, 2021 ," (hereinafter referred to as Page No.# 22/39 Act, 2021), with an object to regulate the process of direct recruitment for appointment to Class III & Class IV post in different offices under the Government of Assam by holding common selection through a commission to be constituted under the aforesaid Act, 2021. Accordingly, by a notification dated 05.03.2022, the Assam Direct Recruitment Commission for Analogous post in Class III and Class IV, Rules, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as Rules 2022), was notified, creating the Assam Direct Recruitment Commission (hereinafter referred to as ADRC). Thereafter, the ADRC issued an advertisement on 25.03.2022 for the selection of Grade-III & Grade-IV posts.
XIII. Claiming that these posts also include the posts which were advertised under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, WP(C) 5450/2022 is filed assailing the advertisement dated 25.03.2022 with a further challenge to the earlier orders of cancellation dated 09.11.2021 and 15.11.2021. This court, while entertaining the writ petition, under its order dated 25.11.2022, directed the respondents to keep 149 posts vacant, which were advertised by the advertisements dated 28.02.2019.
8. Thus, impugned communication dated 09.11.2021, 15.11.2021 advertisement dated 25.03.2022 and order dated 26.05.2020 are challenged in WP(C) 5450/2022, WP(C) 727/2022, WP(C) 8211/2022, , in WP(C) 336/2023 and WP(C) 217/2024, whereas, in WP(C) 7269/2021, though other challenges are same, Page No.# 23/39 there is no challenge to any advertisement inasmuch as this writ petition was filed prior to issuance of the impugned advertisement dated 25.03.2022
9. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, Mr. K.N. Choudhury and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsels and Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel argue that:
I. Order dated 13.07.2020, passed in WP(C) 2699/2020, reflects that the senior counsel representing the Department took a stand that the allegation made in the writ petition regarding the anomalies in the selection under advertisements dated 28.02.2019 is not only vague but an afterthought and based on newspaper clippings without any authentication. Such a stand clearly reflects the stand of the state and therefore, the state cannot play hot and cold at the same time by taking two stands and cancel the entire selection process on the basis of allegations made in news paper, that too without having any subjective satisfaction as regards occurrence of such alleged anomalies and therefore, the reasons for cancellation are arbitrary.
II. Though while taking the impugned decisions, the authorities had placed reliance on the order of this court dated 31.08.2021 passed in WP(C) No.2370/2020, WP(C) 2699/2020 and also on the order passed in WP(C) No.226/2021, and cites the same to be the basis of cancellation, however, the aforesaid orders Page No.# 24/39 only relates to withdrawal of the two sets of writ petitions i.e. claiming fresh selection and seeking direction of declaration of result and therefore, such action of the State itself shows non application of mind and absence of subjective satisfaction at the hands of the authority, who issued the impugned orders.
III. The reasons cited in the impugned order for cancellation of the selection process cannot pass the judicial scrutiny of this court in the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as there was no material or basis to cancel such a duly held selection process. The reason for cancellation is based on apprehension of defamation of the department on the basis of allegations published in newspapers and statements made in writ petitions, without there being any material, even prima facie, to cancel the selection, not to mention any enquiry to that effect.
IV. Though the state will be within its power to cancel a selection process and though it is correct to say that the selected candidates or candidates who has participated shall not have an indefeasible right to get appointed, however such decision should be based on reasons, which can pass the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not at whims & fancies of the respondent. In support of such contention, reliance upon the decisions rendered in Pancharatna Cement (P) Ltd Page No.# 25/39 vs. Union of India and ors reported in 2009 (6) GLR 459 and Anju Rani Baishya Vs. State of Assam and Ors reported in 2003 (3) GLT 522, in Amarendra Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 881, in Mahendran Malteesh Y Annigeri Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1990 SC 405, in Lt. CDR M. Ramesh Vs. Union of India & ors reported in 2018 16 SCC 195, in Asha Kaul Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1993 (2) SCC 573 are placed. V. The vacancies for which the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, were published relates to a date prior to issuance of the advertisement and therefore, such vacancies and post arising at that relevant point of time, cannot be clubbed for the subsequent selection process inasmuch as, by its letter dated 24.05.2021, the Director had himself admitted that there is increase in the number of vacancies subsequent to the advertisement dated 28.02.2019. In support, reliance on the decision rendered in Kerela State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Akhilesh V.S. and others reported in 2019 14 SCC 96 and Swapan Kumar Handique and Others vs. Padma Dhar Deka and Others reported in 2001 (1) GLT 281 are placed.
VI. Section 3 of the Act' 21 lays down that the provision of the Act' 2021, shall apply for the direct recruitment to all Class III and Class IV posts, both Page No.# 26/39 technical and non-technical and under the Govt. of Assam, however, the Govt is empowered to issue a specific or general notification to exclude certain posts or category of posts from the purview of the Act, 2021. Therefore, in the given facts of this case, the government ought to have exercised this power inasmuch as the same would have balanced the equity as well as the situation of clubbing vacancies would not have arisen.
VII. In the given facts of the present case, the section 21 (1) of the Act, 2021, saves the selection process initiated by advertisements dated 28.02.2019, more particularly, for the reason that the Director by its communication dated 26.05.2022, clarified that those candidates who applied and appeared pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.02.2019, can also participate in the subsequent selection process, without making a fresh application and thus by this communication, for all meaning and purport, the earlier selection process is revived to its currency. Therefore, the writ petitions are required to be allowed by directing the respondents in the Elementary Education Department to declare the result of the written test held pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.02.2019 and to proceed further and complete the selection process as the selection process initiated by advertisement dated 28.02.2019 is saved by virtue of such provision.
Page No.# 27/39
10. Per contra, Mr. D Saikia, learned Advocate General contends:
I. The state is not under any bounden duty to continue with the selection process, nor do the candidates who participated pursuant to the selection process have any indefeasible right to compel the state authorities to continue with such a selection process. II. It is a well-settled principle of law that even after publication of a select list, it would be open to the Government, not to fill up the vacancies and cancel the selection process, for the reason that even such a successful & selected candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. At the same time, when in the present case, the selection process did not even reach the second stage of the selection, the petitioners cannot seek a direction to complete such a selection process. Therefore, on this count alone, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neelima Sangla Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1986 4 SCC 268 is relied upon.
III. Taking note of public interest, purity of the selection, administrative convenience of holding a fresh common selection process and saving the government exchequer, as reflected in the decisions and orders impugned, the state has taken a conscious decision to Page No.# 28/39 cancel the entire selection process. The decision not to fill up the vacancies or to cancel the selection process is bona fide for appropriate reasons, and there is no malafide intention on the part of the state. It is a bona fide exercise of power to keep the public trust in the selection process and to have complete transparency in the selection process. Therefore, such a decision cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary, in the backdrop of the limited right of the petitioners. In this regard, the determination made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sankarasan Das Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in 1991 3 SCC 47 is placed into service.
IV. It is not always necessary to conduct an enquiry prior to cancellation of the selection, when allegations that selection is tainted and what is required is a prima facie satisfaction and such satisfaction is available on the record itself. Therefore, this court in exercise of its power of judicial review, may not interfere with such decision, more particularly, when the cancellation is not based only for the reason of allegations made but for administrative exigencies, administrative convenience, reduce cost etc. V. The arguments of the petitioners as regards the provisions of the Act 2021 and the Rules 2022 are misplaced inasmuch as, it cannot be said that the order dated 26.05.2022 under the scheme of the Act' 2021 is Page No.# 29/39 an order passed in exercise of power under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2022 . It is nothing but a benefit given to the candidates who participated in the cancelled selection process. And therefore, it cannot be said that such action shall revive the already cancelled selection process to save it, in terms of the proviso (1) to Section 21 of the Act, 2021.
11. In the aforesaid backdrop of arguments, let this court first deal with the advertisements. Clause (4) of the advertisement dated 28.02.2019 for filling up of Grade IV posts prescribes three phases of selection, i.e. written examination, writing ability test to assess the language skill and computer proficiency test. It is further mandated that the candidate must have to qualify in the first phase to appear in the second and third phases, respectively. It is an admitted position that at the time of cancellation, only the first phase was over and no result of the written test was declared. Thus, the selection process was at a very nascent stage.
12. So far, relating to the appointment of grade III posts, it is seen that a written examination (OMR/interview) was prescribed and was to be notified in due course. Thus, though it is not clarified as regards the procedure of selection, however, there are references to written examination/interview as per existing government rules. From the records available as well as the facts recorded hereinabove, it is clear that only a written test was held and the result was not declared in respect of Grade-III posts. Thus, it is Page No.# 30/39 clear that the selection process was not over; only the written examination was held.
13. Now, let this court deal with the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards the concession given by the senior standing counsel of the Education Department. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2021 goes to show that the learned senior counsel representing the Education Department denied the allegation and further submitted that the allegations are vague and afterthought, based on newspaper clippings without there being any authentication. It was the specific stand of the learned senior counsel for the Education Department on 26.07.2021 that when the selection process has not been completed, the allegation of nepotism is premature. In the considered opinion of this court, the submissions so made can't be treated as a concession given by the learned senior standing counsel for the department that the selection process was fair, absolutely clean, and there is no nepotism. Even if it is assumed that the argument of the learned senior standing counsel is treated to be the stand of the state, then also only based on such stand, it cannot be said that the government have already concluded that the selection process was transparent, clean and without any nepotism inasmuch as, the learned standing counsel took a specific stand that the writ petition itself is premature being filed only after completion of the written test and based on newspaper clippings. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, advanced in this behalf does not find favour of this court.
Page No.# 31/39
14. In the backdrop of arguments that the impugned order was passed only on apprehension and without any subjective satisfaction and that, without any objectivity, the selection was cancelled, this court has gone into the record in original produced by the learned standing counsel.
15. Now coming to the challenges made, the communication of the Director dated 24.05.2021 can be said to be the initiation/proposal for cancellation of the selection process under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019.
16. From the aforesaid communications, what was expressed by the Director can be summarized as follows:
A. The duty and responsibility to conduct the examination was though given to AMTRON, however, no tender process was initiated to engage the above noted third party and no price was fixed, by following the due process of rule and this aspect of the matter requires to be attended to ensure that there occurs no violation of financial rules and procedure at any level. B. After the conduct of the written examination by the aforesaid party, there were news items published raising a lot of allegations in respect of these ongoing processes of recruitment and on this basis, writ petitions were filed.
C. The Director is apprehensive and thinks, that if the result of the written examination is declared, there may be further complaints and it would defame not only the Page No.# 32/39 Directorate but also the department of Education as a whole, whereas the Director in last few months have completed recruitment of as many as 11,763 regular teachers without any allegations or complaints. D. During the last few months, the vacancy has increased by 384 and apart from the aforesaid vacancies, the Director is ready to conduct a selection for the total vacant post of 1177 (Grade-IV) and a total of 1561 vacant posts of Grade-III and Grade-IV.
E. The competent authority, therefore, may consider the aforesaid facts and circumstances and, instead of going ahead with the ongoing process started by advertisements dated 28.02.2019, may together conduct a single recruitment drive to fill up all existing vacancies of Grade III and Grade IV under DEE Assam as per the existing norms.
F. Such exercise shall also be cost-effective and the entire process can be affected in a planned, organized and transparent manner by conducting back office verification of documents, etc., which was successfully been done by the Director by recently recruiting 11763 regular teachers.
17. This court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot find fault with the proposal of the Director of Elementary Education Assam dated 24.05.2021, since, proposal of based on economic consideration (cost effectiveness) and to avoid controversies and to Page No.# 33/39 ensure transparency in as much as such was a proposal only and that too at a stage when the selection process was not complete, rather was at an initial stage.
18. Now coming to the decision on such a proposal, the record discloses that initially the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department, took note of the aforesaid proposal and proposed that the contents of allegation published in news item as regards fairness of the selection process may be investigated to confirm it. However, the Special Commissioner, Elementary Education Department based on the proposal of the Director dated 24.05.2021, proposed to complete the selection process subject to improvement of Covid 19 situation and subject to taking leave from this court and publish the result with due leave from this court, which was also approved by the Education Minister.
19. Be that as it may, a fresh note was put by the senior AA(EED) on 29.07.2021, in reference to an order dated 26.07.2021 passed in WP(C) 226/2021. The said order reflects that the learned counsel for the Elementary Education to a query of this court informed the court that the departmental authorities are examining the matter, and depending upon the result of such examination, a final decision would be taken by the authorities within two weeks and whatever decision would be taken, same would be brought before the court in the form of an affidavit.
20. Accordingly, a fresh process of decision making was initiated, and a proposal was given by the Principal Secretary again referring to the earlier proposal of Director dated 24.05.2021 Page No.# 34/39 proposing cancellation of entire selection, however, he has not expressed any independent opinion as regards proposal of the Director, rather sought approval from the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The Chief Minister, without straightaway allowing such a proposal, thought it prudent to take the opinion of the Advocate General. The Advocate General in his opinion after, perusal of the records, had found some anomalies, as well as he opined that the anomalies so alleged are specific and accordingly he opined, either for an enquiry and subject to outcome of such enquiry, either to proceed with such selection process or to cancel the same. At the same time, he also opined that no indefeasible right of the candidates are there and the government is within its domain to cancel such a selection process. Thereafter, the Chief Minister asked to start a fresh process to avoid delay, and accordingly, a speaking order was directed to be passed.
21. Thus, though initially a proposal for an enquiry was made by the joint Secretary to the department, however, the proposal of the Principal Secretary to proceed with the selection process already initiated, was approved by the Education Minister, as recorded hereinabove. The subsequent decision to cancel the selection was taken as recommended by the Chief Minister. The primary reason for such a decision is to avoid further delay in the recruitment process. Such a decision cannot be said to be unreasonable, more particularly, in the backdrop of the opinion of the Advocate General as well as of the Joint Secretary that an enquiry may be conducted. Secondly, the right of the participating candidates, as opined by the Advocate General, was also before the Chief Minister. The proposal Page No.# 35/39 of the Director dated 24.05.2021, which apprehended further litigation was also before the Chief Minister.
22. In this context, to scrutinize the legality and validity of such a decision to cancel selection, this court must also take note and consider the right of the candidates to have the selection concluded.
23. It is by now well settled that an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to fill up vacant posts at a particular department does not create any legal or fundamental right in favour of the participating candidate to get the selection completed and therefore, Writ of Mandamus to that effect cannot be issued inasmuch as, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, existence of a right and violation thereof at the hand of the state and/or, a corresponding duty upon the state is a sine qua non.
24. Further, concerning the selection and recruitment process, it is equally well settled that by merely participating in a recruitment process, or sitting in the examination, or scoring good marks in the merit list, does not confer the participating candidate a legal or fundamental right in his favour for being appointed to the said post or conclusion of the selection process which can be enforced by way of issuance of a writ, except on the ground of arbitrary exercise of power.
25. In the case in hand, the petitioners cannot be said to be successful candidates, and they had only participated in the first phase of selection process by appearing in the written examination. So far relating to Grade-IV, there were still two phases to go and Page No.# 36/39 even the result of the written test was not declared. Therefore, the right of such candidates cannot be equalized with a candidate, whose name finds a place in the final select list after completion of a selection process. Aforesaid two categories, in the considered opinion of this court, is different. The right of a selected candidate for continuation of the selection process and to get appointed itself is very limited to the extent that such cancellation should not be arbitrary and or malafide.
26. On perusal of the record, this court has not found any arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. Though the Principle Secretary placed a proposal before the Chief Minister for cancellation of the entire selection process based on the proposal of the Director of Elementary Education, however, the Chief Minister instead of accepting such proposal sought further opinion from the Advocate General and subsequently after perusal of the opinion of the Advocate General and the relevant records recommended for cancellation of the selection process for the reasons recorded hereinabove, which in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be termed as unreasonable. The state taking note of administrative exigencies/considerations, such as convenience of holding a comprehensive selection process, economic consideration and to keep the public trust in a selection process, when there are allegation of anomalies, shall very well be within its right to abandon a selection process, more particularly, when the same is at a very early stage. The cancellation of such selection process for the reason discernible from the record, in the opinion of this court Page No.# 37/39 cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary, more particularly, in comparison to the limited right of the participating candidates, that too in absence of any material to suggest such cancellation for malafide reasons. After perusal of the material on records, pleading of the writ petitioners, this court is of the unhesitant opinion that the decision was taken giving due regard to the circumstances, balancing the right of the already participating candidates like the petitioners.
27. Thus, to conclude, the impugned proposal of the Director dated 24.05.2021 and the decision taken thereon, cannot be said to be without reason and to name it as decisions in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, compared to the right of a candidate like petitioners, who had only appeared in the written test and result of such written test was not even declared, when the entire selection process consist of more than one stage.
28. Now coming to the provision of section 21 of the Act, 2021, Section 21 saves a selection process which is at any stage of the recruitment pursuant to an advertisement on the date of enactment of the Act' 2021. Section 3 of the Act makes the provision of the act applicable for direct recruitment to all Class III & IV posts under Government of Assam, with a rider that the Government by general or specific notification can exclude certain post or category of post from purview of the Act' 2021. However, in the case in hand, on the date of coming into effect of the Act' 2021, the selection process under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, Page No.# 38/39 was already cancelled, and therefore, it cannot be said to be a continuing selection process as prescribed under section 21 (1) of the Act' 2021.
29. Coming to the decision of the state to allow the candidates like that of the petitioners, who participated in the written test under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, in the considered opinion of this court, is a benefit granted to those candidates, so far relating to the fresh advertisement, allowing them to participate in the new selection process without applying afresh. Such a decision, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as a specific or general notification issued in exercise of power under section 3 of the Act, 2021, excluding the post under advertisement dated 28.02.2019 from the purview of the Act 2021. It is also the opinion of this court that the order permitting the petitioners in fresh selection process, without applying afresh, is a benefit given to them and such benefit shall not revive the earlier selection process to treat it to be a selection process in continuance, to get the protection under section 21 (1) of the Act'2021, more particularly, when on the date of coming into effect of the act, the selection process was already cancelled and this court has already concluded that such cancellation cannot be interfered in exercise of power of judicial review.
30. Now coming to the argument of clubbing of vacancies, the judgments relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the given facts of the present case and are relatable not to direct recruitment inasmuch as when the Page No.# 39/39 state is within its right to appoint or to initiate a selection process for direct recruitment, it cannot be said that they will have to hold selection year wise always and under all circumstances. Therefore, such an argument also finds no favour with this court.
31. Accordingly, in the totality of the matter, more particularly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this court is of unhesitant opinion that all these writ petitions lack merit, and accordingly, the same stand dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant