JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is with regard to recruitment process for the post of Principal in the Kalaigaon Senior Secondary School, Udalguri. The petitioner, who is working as a Post Graduate Teacher in the said school is aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the private respondent no. 5 as the Principal by contending that the said respondent no. 5 is inferior to the petitioner in the relevant criteria and there is also procedural violation in the selection process.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are stated briefly.

3. On 12.11.2021, an advertisement was published for appointment of 14 numbers of vacant posts of Principal in various Junior Colleges/Senior Secondary Schools in different districts of the BTC. In the said advertisement, the name of the institution in question, namely, the Kalaigaon Senior Secondary School was placed against serial no. 14. The petitioner, who claims to be working as a Subject Teacher and eligible in all respects applied for the said post. It is the contention of the petitioner that the selection is held as per revised guidelines. Marks are given on different Heads and in the instant case, the relevant Heads are marks on Administrative Ability for which 3 marks are allotted and marks on Integrity and Personality for which again 3 marks are allotted. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 was allotted marks which he did not deserve in both the Heads. In the said recruitment, while the petitioner had secured 16 marks, the respondent no. 5 had secured 18 marks. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 should not have been granted 18 marks and it is the petitioner, who should have been selected and appointed. The contention of the respondents, on the other hand, is that there is no violation of procedure and no injustice has been caused to any incumbents including the petitioner. The question of maintainability of the writ petition has also been raised on behalf of the private respondent.

4. I have heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S.R. Rabha, learned Standing Counsel, BTC whereas Shri P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel has appeared for the private respondent no. 5. Shri Rabha, the learned Standing Counsel has also placed before this Court the scanned copies of the records of the selection. The same have been duly perused.

5. Ms. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that marks have been unduly given to the respondent no. 5 on the aforesaid two Heads of Administrative Ability and Integrity and Personality. She submits that though 1 mark has been allotted to the respondent no. 5 under the said Head of Administrative Ability, the said respondent no. 5 was not given any Award whether National, State or District so as to entitle himself for 1 mark each. On the Head of Integrity and Personality, while as per the guidelines, marks are to be granted on the basis of the Gradings in the ACR, the respondent no. 5 does not have any Gradings in the ACR, and the only remark given is that:

“He can be considered for next promotion.”

6. The learned counsel accordingly submits that if the 2 marks are deducted from the marks obtained by the respondent no. 5, the petitioner will be appointed.

7. Per contra, Shri Rabha, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 12.09.2023 has submitted that the petition and the present challenge have been structured on a misconceived notion. He submits that the selection was held for different districts under the BTC and the present Senior Secondary School was in the district of Udalguri for which there were 05 numbers of vacancies and a common selection was held for all the vacancies. By referrin