Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Binod Karmakar, S/o. Bikash Karmakar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being sought to be invoked by means of this petition which has been filed in connection with a recruitment process for Assistant Teachers of various LP/UP Schools in the State of Assam.
2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, the facts of the case may be stated in brief in the following manner.
3. The case has a chequered history as there were a number of litigations which had gone up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the present writ petition is an offshoot of the earlier proceedings.
4. On 11.09.2020, an advertisement was issued for filling up 3,941 (Three Thousand Nine Hundred Forty One) vacancies of Assistant Teachers of LP/UP Schools in the State of Assam. The said advertisement however contained a condition that candidates who were Assam State TET qualified would only be allowed to participate and Central TET qualified candidates were excluded from the purview of the recruitment process. It is the case of the petitioners that in all prior recruitment process, there was no such distinction between State TET qualification and Central TET qualification.
5. Being aggri
Appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with merits on basis of their position in merit list.
The court established that modifications to recruitment eligibility conditions did not violate constitutional rights and maintained that merit-based evaluation prevails over qualification type.
The expression used is “it is clarified”, meaning thereby that the same is clarificatory in nature and therefore, by the Rules of interpretation, the same would relate back to the notification which ....
Though the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioners appear to be on the ground of not acquiring the TET qualification within a particular age, it is an admitted fact that all the petitioners ....
The judgment emphasized the limited review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and highlighted that no vested rights could accrue to the petitioners due to an advertisement th....
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
Point of Law : Doctrine of Estoppel debars a person/authority from negating any fact constituted to be truth either by action or deeds or by representation of that person/authority.
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
