JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being sought to be invoked by means of this writ petition whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the selection and appointment dated 02.05.2017 of the respondent no. 6 as Principal of the Mallow Ali HS School in the district of Jorhat.

2. There is a chequered history in this case and to understand the issue involved, it would be convenient if the background facts are noted in brief.

3. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in the Malowali HS School in the district of Jorhat (hereinafter called the school). In the year 2011, when the post of the Principal of the School had fallen vacant, the petitioner was given the charge of the Principal vide an order dated 29.07.2011. However, it is the case of the petitioner that after 43 days, vide an order dated 08.09.2011, she was replaced by the respondent no. 5. The said action was based on a Government Notification dated 29.03.2011 whereby Subject Teachers were to be given priority over Assistant Teachers. This Court has however been informed that the aforesaid notification was interfered with in a writ petition being WP (C)/4836/2011 vide order dated 21.03.2012, which was filed by another party.

4. Accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2011 was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition WP (C)/4797/2011 by the present petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 22.02.2012 by holding that the respondent no. 5 was senior to the petitioner as the petitioner had joined the present School on transfer. However, this Court had made a further direction to hold regular selection to the post of Principal. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such directions, no action was taken for holding any regular selection and consequently, the respondent no. 5 was continuing as In-Charge Principal.

5. Under such circumstances, the petitioner had filed another writ petition in this Court which was registered as WP (C)/5169/2015. The petitioner had also taken the ground of service break of the respondent no. 5 as well as unauthorized leave in which regard, an enquiry was stated to be initiated.

6. Subsequently, there was a notification for selection of regular Principal, pursuant to which, an advertisement was published on 19.06.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that she had submitted her candidature along with that of the respondent no. 6. The petitioner has alleged that the selection was vitiated and the respondent no. 6 was given 12 marks whereas the petitioner was given 11 marks and accordingly the recommendation in favour of the respondent no. 6 was made on 16.11.2016. It has been contended that the constitution of the School Selection Committee was flawed and biased inasmuch as, the respondent no. 5, who was the In-Charge Principal was also a Member of the Committee in the capacity of Member Secretary. The petitioner contends that since there were previous litigations of the petitioner with the respondent no. 5, her presence in the School Selection Committee has resulted in a biased and unfair result. It is also contended that one of the Member of the Committee was not even a Matriculate. The pattern, in which marks have been allotted, is also assailed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that percentage-wise, she should have been given more marks than the respondent no. 6 but in the leadership skills, equal marks were given so as to make the respondent no. 6 in the first position. A ground of challenge is also structured on the Administrative Ability as according to the petitioner, she has better credentials than the respondent no. 6. It is also contended that the respondent no. 6 is five years junior to the petitioner and had obtained the B.Ed. degree from Deomornoi B.Ed. College,