Point of Law: It is well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at interview, then, only because result of interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that process of interview was unfair.

JUDGMENT :

1. At the outset, Shri DK Sarmah, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 4 and 6 has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that selections pertaining to two Schools have been challenged in one writ petition in which, necessary parties have also not been arrayed.

2. In reply thereto, Shri B Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not like to proceed with the challenge made to the selection in respect of B.L.B.S.D.V.M. Hindi High School, Lumding and therefore, he prays that the respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 be struck off from the array of the parties.

3. Accordingly and on such prayer, the respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 are struck off from the array of respondents in this writ petition.

4. The petitioner has challenged the selection process for the post of LDA initiated vide advertisement dated 12.12.2015 in two schools namely B.L.B.S.D.V.M Hindi High School and B.M.B. High School, Lumding, Nagaon. However, in view of the submissions made which are recorded above that the present challenge would be restricted only to the selection in B.M.B. High School, Lumding, the discussions in this judgment would pertain to the aforesaid selection only.

5. The facts, as projected in the writ petition is that on 12.12.2015, an advertisement was published in the ‘Asomiya Pratidin’ a vernacular daily for filling up of one post (Unreserved) of LDA in the B.M.B. High School, Lumding (herein after School). Though the date was initially fixed on 20.12.2015, it was postponed to 21.01.2016 on which date the written test was held. Thereafter, on 30.01.2016, the Typing Test and viva-vocewere held at the Nagaon Bengali Girls High School. It is the case of the petitioner that both he and the respondent no. 9, along with other candidates had participated.

6. The ground of challenge regarding the selection process in which the respondent no. 9 was selected and appointed is mainly on the basis of bias. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 9 is related to the Headmistress of the School. The petitioner alleges that though the Headmistress had recused herself from the selection process and was on leave and the entire selection was done under the supervision of the Senior most Assistant Teacher who was given the charge of the Headmaster for those days, there has been interference and participation of the Headmistress in the selection process. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that the selection was not held in a fair manner in which the petitioner was deprived from being selected and appointed.

7. I have heard Shri B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri U. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department and Shri P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 -the selected candidate. None has appeared for the School Authorities. However, the School Authorities had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 14.02.2019. The materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

8. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, Shri Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 14.02.2019 filed by the respondent nos. 5 & 8. He submits that the said affidavit would reveal that one Shri Dhani Ram Das who was the Senior most Assistant Teacher was In-charge of the School as the Headmistress had taken leave on the ground that one of the candidates (respondent no. 9) was her relative. However, the document annexed to the said affidavit-in-opposition would reveal that the Headmistress still had a role in the selection process.

9. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure-D of the said affidavit-in-opposition which is a Notice of candidates who had appeared for the viva-voce and Computer Test and the said Notice contains the signature of the Headmistress. The learned counsel has also referred to the Tabulation Sheet of the various candidates who had