IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process for the post of Junior Instructor was an amalgamated one for all the available posts, and the select list was prepared based on merit and trade qualifications possessed by the candidates.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsels for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, and Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsels for the Higher Education Department representing the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceedings presented a challenge to a notice dated 17.09.2022, issued by the Director of Technical Education, Assam, publishing the select list for various posts including the post of Junior Instructor in various Polytechnics of the State, on the ground that none from the plumbing trade came to be included therein.

3. The Director of Technical Education, Assam, issued an advertisement bearing No. 05/2020 dated 25.02.2020, inviting applications, amongst others, for the post of Junior Instructor in 5 newly established Polytechnics of the State. The total number of posts so advertised was stated in the advertisement to be 25. The said advertisement was followed by an addendum, by which another 58 posts of Junior Instructors came to be advertised. In total, the recruitment process as initiated vide the advertisement dated 25.02.2020 read with the addendum was for filling up of 83 posts of Junior Instructors. The petitioner being eligible had submitted his application for being recruited as a Junior Instructor. The petitioner being found to be eligible; he was allowed to appear in the written examination. On conclusion of the written examination vide the notice dated 08.04.2022, the results of the candidates clearing the written examination component of the selection process were required to appear in the Workshop Proficiency Test. The name of the petitioner figured in the list of candidates who were allowed to appear in the second phase of the selection process i.e. the Workshop Proficiency Test. Insofar as the Plumbing trade is concerned, 5 candidates including the petitioner came to be shortlisted for the Workshop Proficiency Test. Thereafter, on conclusion of the selection process, the notice dated 17.09.2022 came to be issued, amongst others, publishing the select list for the post of Junior Instructor. The petitioner’s name not having figured in the said select list and also no candidate from the Plumbing trade having been so incorporated in the said select list, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

4. Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsels for the petitioner have contended that the select list as published vide the said notice dated 17.09.2022, having not incorporated therein any candidate from the Plumbing trade, the select list was contended to be not sustainable, inasmuch as, the posts of Junior Instructor as advertised for various Polytechnics of the State also included vacancies for the post of Junior Instructor (Plumbing Trade) and it was contended that it was not open to the respondent authorities to ignore the candidates from the Plumbing trade like the petitioner while preparing the said select list.

5. Drawing the attention of this Court, to the notification issued towards the shortlisting candidates for the Workshop Proficiency Test for the post of Junior Instructor, it was contended that the list was prepared trade wise and the name of the petitioner along with 4 others was included against the Plumbing trade. It was contended that the respondent authorities with a view to favor certain identified candidates had published the select list in question without accounting for the vacancies trade wise.

6. On the said premises, it is the submission of the petitioner counsels that the selection process stands vitiated and the post of Junior Instructor for the Plumbing Trade having been filled up with persons from other trades, the same being not permissible, the select list requires to be interfered with by this Court.

7. It is the further prayer of the petitioner’s counsels that necessary direction is required to be issued to the authorities for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in t