The selection of Headmasters must adhere to recruitment rules based on seniority unless compelling reasons are documented for deviation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Considering the subject matter involved and the stand of the BTC made in the affidavit filed in one of the writ petition namely, WP(C)/1735/2024, all these writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The same pertains to selection and appointment of the post of Headmasters in provincialised High Schools in the district of Baksa.

2. To state in brief, the petitioners who in total are 20 in numbers in all these 5 (five) petitions are aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the private respondents in a recruitment exercise conducted by the authorities. The primary ground of challenge is violation of the Rules in question namely, the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018. It is contended that Rule 14 of the said Rules laid down the procedure for recruitment of Headmaster / Superintendent and the selection and appointment have been made in gross violation of the said procedure. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent authorities is that there is substantial compliance of the Rules and the most suitable candidates were appointed.

3. I have heard Shri S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1735/2024, WP(C)/1736/2024 and WP(C)/2339/2024; Shri B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1856/2024 and Shri S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1991/2024. I have also heard Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC; Shri B.B. Narzary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in WP(C)/1735/2024, WP(C)/1736/2024 and WP(C)/2339/2024 and as respondent no. 11 in WP(C)/1991/2024; Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 18, 35 and 36 in WP(C)/1991/2024, Shri J. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 22, 23 and 25 in WP(C)/1991/2024 and Shri P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 24, 26 to 34 in WP(C)/1991/2024. Shri Bora, the learned Standing Counsel has clarified that in this bunch of cases, affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in WP(C)/1735/2024 which would cover all the cases. He has also submitted that part of the records is also available with him which however do not contain the note sheets.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 14 of the aforesaid Rules and has contended that the selection has to be done on the basis of seniority. Attention of this Court have been drawn to the Gradation List to establish that the petitioners are senior to the private respondents and therefore, they ought to have been selected and appointed unless compelling circumstances existed which also are required to be recorded by the authorities which have not been done. It is submitted that the selection has been done based on the whims and caprices of the authorities in gross violation of the Rules.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the BTC which has been mentioned above wherein the Minutes of the Meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 04.03.2024 has been annexed. It is submitted that the said Minutes has only recorded the eligibility criteria and no reasons have been cited as to how the selection was made or that the rigors of Rule 14 were followed in a strict manner. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the writ petitions be allowed and the petitioners be given the benefit of selection and appointment on the basis of the seniority and in accorda