Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Smt. Ajanta Ray – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 345, 409, 457, 622, 646, 662, 664, 670 of 2021
Decided On : 09-11-2021
Extra-ordinary jurisdiction- Select list of candidates for the post of Graduate Teacher pursuant to an advertisement- qualification of TET prior to the selection process – challenging the exclusion of the petitioners from the select list of candidates for the post of Graduate Teacher pursuant to an advertisement - petitioners that they had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate and yet, they have been left out in the select list.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners have been able to make out a case for interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is accordingly held that the TET qualification acquired by the petitioners prior to the recruitment process has to be construed to be meeting the eligibility criteria and therefore, while the rejection of the petitioners in the recruitment process is set aside, the cases of the petitioners for appointment as Graduate Teacher as per the Advertisement dated 11.09.2020 shall be duly considered and based upon their positions in the Merit List be offered expeditiously and in any case within an outer limit of 45 days from today.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. Identical issue being raised in these writ petitions, the same are taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by challenging the exclusion of the petitioners from the select list of candidates for the post of Graduate Teacher pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.11.2019. It the case of the petitioners that they had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate and yet, they have been left out in the select list. The only discernible reason appears to be non-possessing of the TET qualification before the petitioners had attained an upper age limit. It is the case of the petitioners that in any event, all of them had the qualification of TET prior to the selection process. The petitioners have placed reliance upon a development during the pendency of the writ petitions which as per the petitioners, would bring the entire controversy to rest and there would not be any hurdle/hindrance in considering the appointment of the petitioners as Graduate Teachers.
3. For better appreciation of the issue, it would be convenient to briefly narrate the facts of each case.
4. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 345/2021 Smt. Ajanta Ray, who belongs to the OBC category had applied for appointment pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.09.2020 for the post of Graduate Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that she was having the necessary qualification in all respects, including the TET qualification. The petitioner has contended that in the TET examination held on 19.01.2020, she had come out successful securing 127 marks out of 200.
5. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 409/2021 Smt. Gitanjali Dihingia, who belongs to the OBC category had applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 for the post of Graduate Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that she was having the necessary qualification in all respects, including the TET qualification. The petitioner has contended that in the TET examination held on 19.01.2020, she had come out successful securing 134 marks out of 200.
6. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 457/2021, Shri Manash Jyoti Saikia and Shri Mridul Bora, who belongs to the OBC/MOBC category had applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 for the post of Graduate Teacher. It is the case of the petitioners that they were having the necessary qualification in all respects, including the TET qualification. The petitioners have contended that in the TET examination held on 19.01.2020, they have come out successful securing 117 and 132 marks, respectively out of 200.
7. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 622/2021 Johirul Islam, who belongs to the MOBC category had applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 for the post of Graduate Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that he was having the necessary qualification in all respects, including the TET qualification. The petitioner has contended that in the TET examination held on 19.01.2020, he had come out successful securing 132 marks out of 200.
8. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 646/2021 Shri Ratul Barman, who belongs to the OBC category had applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 for the post of Graduate Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that he was having the necessary qualification in all respects, including the TET qualification. The petitioner has contended that in the TET examination held on 19.01.2020, he had come out successful securing 121 marks out of 200.
9. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 662/2021 Smti. Snehalata Roy, who belongs to the MOBC category had applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 for the post of Graduate Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that she was having the necessary qualification in all respects, including the TET qualification. The pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
