Point of Law : Principle of estoppel or waiver will also not be attracted in the instant case as the challenge is on a ground which came to light after the recruitment process was over. In any case, the ground is with regard to violation of a statutory requirement and therefore, there cannot be estoppel in law.

JUDGMENT :

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner by questioning the legality and validity of an order dated 22.06.2017 issued in favour of the respondent no. 6 appointing him as the Principal of the Singimari Md. Ali Higher Secondary School (hereinafter, School). The principal ground of challenge is that the said respondent no. 6 was not eligible for such appointment on the relevant date and therefore, could not have been appointed. On the other hand, the petitioner had fulfilled all the requisite qualification and eligibility and therefore, was liable to be offered the said appointment.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in this case, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.

3. The petitioner is a Post Graduate subject teacher of the School. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 22.06.2016 for filling up of the post of regular Principal of the School, the petitioner, respondent no. 6 and few other persons had offered their candidature. The said respondent no. 6 is however a Graduate Teacher. Though, the Rules holding the field namely, the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rule, 2003 (as amended in 2012) (hereinafter called the Rules), allows both Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers to be considered for appointment as Principal in a Higher Secondary School, different eligibility criteria are prescribed. To be more specific, whereas a Graduate Teacher is required to have a teaching experience of 17 years as qualifying service, a Post Graduate Teacher is required to have a teaching experience of 15 years as qualifying service. The aforesaid Rules is also reiterated in an Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2014. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that on the date of submission of application for the aforesaid post of Principal pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.06.2016, the respondent no. 6 did not have the qualifying service of 17 service. However, the said respondent no. 6 has been considered and appointed as Principal of the School, vide impugned order dated 22.06.2017. The petitioner contends that the crucial date for meeting the eligibility criteria is the last date of application as stipulated in the advertisement and in the instant case, on such date, the respondent no. 6 have completed only 16 years 7 months and 7 days.

4. I have heard Shri D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri U. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department and Shri K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. This Court is informed that Ms. KM Talukdar, learned counsel had earlier represented the respondent no. 7 (Zakir Hussain), who however has expired during the present proceedings. The materials available on record have been carefully examined.

5. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant Rules which lay down the eligibility criteria for filling up of the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary School. For ready reference, the relevant Rules, namely, Rule 12(2) is extracted hereinbelow-

“12(2). The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal in Higher Secondary School or Higher Secondary and Multipurpose School shall be as follows:-

(i) The candidate must be M.A./M.Sc./M.Com with B.T/B/Ed. Degree from any recognized University having uniform good academic career;

(ii) The candidate must have rendered at least 15 years of service as Post Graduate Teachers or Vice-Principal or both in any of the provincialized Higher Secondary School; or

(iii) The candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher in any Higher Secondary/Higher Secondary & Multipurpose School;

(iv) The age must not be less than 40 years as on the first January of the year of recruitment.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to an Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2014 issued by