IMPORTANT POINT
Reserved category candidates clearing the TET with relaxed standards should be permitted to have their cases considered against unreserved posts, and the TET marks should not be a deciding factor for appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bedanta Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. None has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 4 & 5.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding is with regard to the denial of appointment to the petitioner, herein, in pursuance to his selection for the post of Subject Teacher in Dirak Higher Secondary School, Tinsukia, on the ground that the petitioner had not scored 60% marks in aggregate as well as in each of the papers in his TET Examination.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner who belongs to the MOBC category and possessing the requisite mandated qualification, had appeared in the TET Examination for Higher Secondary Level and had qualified the said Examination with 57.50% of marks in aggregate.

4. It is to be noted that the minimum qualifying marks in the said TET Examination is 60% marks in each paper for General category candidate. However, the same is relaxed to 55% marks in respect of each paper for candidates belonging to the reserved category candidate and/or for candidates having benchmark disability.

5. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, issued an Office Memorandum, dated 14.07.2016, laying down the guidelines for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in provincialized Higher Secondary Schools. In pursuance to the said Office Memorandum, dated 14.07.2016, and in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized) Service Rules, 2003, an Advertisement was issued on 28.10.2015, for filling up of 22 nos. of vacant sanctioned posts of Post Graduate Teacher in Tinsukia District including the post of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science available in Dirak Higher Secondary School. The Advertisement, dated 29.10.2015, had also brought on record, the break-up of the vacancies so advertised.

It is contended that the petitioner, herein, had submitted an application in pursuance to the said advertisement for recruitment against the post of Post Graduate Teacher in the subject of Political Science available in Dirak Higher Secondary School.

The petitioner, thereafter, had appeared in the selection process and the District Selection Committee so constituted, had recommended the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 2 against the post of Subject Teacher in Political Science available in Dirak Higher Secondary School.

It is contended that the candidate placed at Serial No. 1 by the said District Selection Committee i.e. Dakshya Baruah had submitted an application requesting that she be not considered for the said post and accordingly, the District Selection Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner, herein, against the post for appointment.

It is also contended that after the District Selection Committee had made its recommendations, further processing of the matter was done at the State Level by the constituted authority and a select list came to be published in the matter on 03.01.2019. However, the name of the petitioner did not figure amongst the Post Graduate Teachers so selected for appointment against the post of Post Graduate Teachers in Tinsukia district.

It is further contended that basing on the said selection process; the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, vide order, dated 21.11.2017, proceeded to make appointments therefrom. However, no appointment was made against the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Political Science as advertised for Dirak Higher Secondary School.

On an enquiry, the petitioner was given to understand that his case for such appointment inspite of being recommended by the District Selection Committee; was not considered in-as-much as it was found that the petitioner had not scored 60% marks in the