The importance of challenging the initial orders leading to the consequential appointment and the exercise of writ jurisdiction to dismiss the petition due to lack of merit.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

1. Heard Shri P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri U. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the official respondents, Ms. D. Das Barman, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and Deputy Commissioner, Hojai and Shri R.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 7.

2. Considering that the writ petition is of the year 2016 and as stipulated by the last order dtd. 16/2/2022, the petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The pleadings of the contesting parties are also seen to be complete.

3. The petitioner has put to challenge the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 7 to the post of LDA in the Dakhin Hojai High School (herein after School). The Projected case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued on 12/12/2015 for filling up one post of Lower Division Assistant in the School in which amongst others, the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 had participated. Amongst the criteria fixed for eligibility, the age was fixed to be from 18 to 38 years. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20/12/2015, the written examination was held followed by an interview and the results were declared in which the respondent no. 7 was placed as the first nominee with a total mark of 65 whereas the petitioner was the second nominee with 59 marks. The primary challenge of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 7 was otherwise ineligible to even apply for the said post on the criterion of age as his age was more than the upper limit. However, to overcome the same, the respondent no. 7 took the benefit of an Office Memorandum of the Government of Assam whereby for persons with disability, the age was relaxed from 38 to 43 years and in this connection, certain certificates were also issued by the said respondent no. 7. The petitioner has also alleged manipulation in the marks as the father of the respondent no. 7 was the erstwhile Headmaster of the School in question and had influence in the selection.

4. By drawing the attention of this Court to the disability certificate which is dtd. 31/12/2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same was not an existence at the time when the written examination and interview were held which otherwise was required to be existing at the time of applying for the post.

5. Shri Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that only to take undue benefit of the Office Memorandum dtd. 19/7/2010 of the Government of Assam that the respondent no. 7 had taken recourse to a fraudulent means. The learned counsel accordingly prays for interference by setting aside the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 7.

6. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Shri U. Sharma, learned counsel for the Department submits that no illegality has been committed and the matter was earlier examined by this Court and only upon remand, the appointment of the respondent no. 7 has been made.

7. Ms. D. Das. Barman, the learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6, Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and Deputy Commissioner, Hojai submits that after the remand order by this Court, the matter was examined and separate orders were issued which however are not the subject matter of challenge.

8. Shri R.L Yadav, learned counsel defending the respondent no. 7 raises a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition due to want of proper challenge. The learned counsel points out that the present dispute was the subject matter of an earlier writ petition instituted by the petitioner which was registered as WP(C) No. 3226/2016. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order dtd. 30/5/2016, Shri Yadav, the learned counsel has submitted that the Court has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and after recording the submission has also recorded that a limited prayer was made