Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Vijay Bishnoi, C.J., N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
The State of Assam Through The Secretary To The Govt Of Assam Department Of School Education and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Lohori Das W/O Santosh Bhowmik and ors. – Respondents
WA/76/2024
Decided On : 25-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R Mazumdar, SC
For the Respondent: Ms. M D Borah, Sc, Rmsa,For Caveator,Mr. N Haque, Mr. P K Roychoudhury, Dr. B Ahmed, Mr K Uddin, Mr. A K Azad, Mr M Hussain

Eligibility criteria for recruitment must be strictly adhered to, and any changes post-selection cannot retroactively affect concluded processes.

Headnote:(A) Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules, 2018 - Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2020 - Recruitment of Graduate Teachers - Eligibility criteria for age relaxation - The respondent was excluded from the final selection list due to exceeding the age limit for relaxation as per the advertisement dated 11.09.2020. The learned Single Judge directed consideration for appointment based on merit, which was contested by the appellants. The court found that the corrigendum issued post-selection did not apply retroactively to the recruitment process. (Paras 4, 19, 21, 26)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the eligibility criteria must be adhered to strictly, and any changes post-selection cannot affect the already concluded process. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The respondent applied for the position of Graduate Teacher as per the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 but was excluded from the final list due to age limit issues concerning her TET qualification. The learned Single Judge ruled in her favor, prompting the appellants to appeal.

Findings of Court:
The corrigendum issued after the selection process could not be applied retroactively, and the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria as set out in the original advertisement.

Issues: The main issues were whether the corrigendum could be applied retroactively and if the respondent was eligible for the position based on her qualifications and age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the corrigendum did not affect the eligibility criteria established prior to the selection process, and the respondent's application was invalid as she did not meet the age requirements at the time of qualification.

Result: The Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2022 was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J

Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel along with Mr. A. K. Azad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.

2. The present intra-court appeal has been instituted by the appellants, assailing the Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6284/2021, thereby allowing the writ petition and directing for consideration of the case of the respondent no. 1 for appointment as Graduate Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, basing on her merit so obtained in the selection process so held.

3. The facts in brief requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under: -

The Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide an advertisement dated11.09.2020 had invited applications from intending and eligible candidates for filling up of vacant posts of Graduate Teachers (Science & Arts) in provincialised High/Higher Secondary Schools in the State.

In terms of the said advertisement, an intending candidate for the post of Graduate Teacher was to have a Graduate and/or Post-Graduate degree from a recognized University with least 50% marks in either Graduation or Post- Graduation (or its equivalent) along with B. Ed degree. The intending candidate also was required to have acquired Secondary TET qualification with 60% marks in each paper for Un-reserved category candidate and 50% marks for Reserved category candidate. The said advertisement also provided for relaxation of the upper age limit for various categories. The upper age limit was relaxed up to 40 years for Un-reserved category, 42 years for Ex-servicemen, 43 years for OBC/NOBC and 45 years for ST (P)/ST (H) candidates as on 01.01.2020, in terms of the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 02.09.2020.It was further stipulated that the relaxation would be applicable only to those candidates, who had attained the necessary educational or other qualification prior to crossing of the existing upper age limit of 40 years.

The respondent no. 1 herein, contends that she being eligible in terms of the qualification set out in the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, had submitted her application in pursuance thereof. It is further contended that the appellants herein had published the District Level Combined List for preparation of the merit list for the Cachar district and therein, the name of the respondent no. 1 was included for final selection.

Thereafter, the appellants herein, had published district wise final selection list for the post so available in various districts in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, including for the vacancies so identified in the district of Cachar, category wise. In the final list so published for the district of Cachar, the name of the respondent no. 1 was not included. On enquiry, the respondent no. 1 was given to understand that she was not included in the final select list under SC category on the ground of overage, inasmuch as, she having obtained her TET qualification after attaining the age of 40 years, she would not be eligible to the relaxation of upper age limit as provided for in the advertisement in terms of the OM dated 02.09.2020.

Being aggrieved, on account of non inclusion of her name in the final select list as prepared for the vacancies identified for the district of Cachar for Scheduled Caste community candidates, the respondent no. 1 approached the writ Court by way of instituting WP(C) No. 6284/2021.

The learned Single Judge, on considering the issues arising in the writ petition was pleased vide order dated 29.04.2022 to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the appellants herein, to consider the case of the respondent, herein, for appointment as Graduate Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, basing on the merit position obtained by he