A candidate who participates in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the criteria and procedures is precluded from challenging the process upon being unsuccessful. Furthermore, merely being shortlisted for an interview does not create a vested right to appointment.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education; Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, SSA/RMSA; Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. H. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent No.19.

2. Challenging the selection process for the appointment of Principals of Adarsha Vidyalayas pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.04.2022, the consequential selection list dated 01.06.2022 and the appointment orders dated 03.06.2022, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is an M.Sc. with B.Ed. and Ph.D. degree holder and has passed the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) three times. Apart from the above educational qualifications, she has undergone various academic courses, published four books on environmental science and has had an excellent academic career.

4. An advertisement was published by the Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan, through the office of the Director of Technical Education, Assam, inviting applications from intending candidates who are permanent residents of Assam for recruitment to 23 posts of Principal of Adarsha Vidyalayas on a contractual basis, which may be renewed depending on satisfactory annual performance.

5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner offered her candidature. The respondent authorities published a list of 104 shortlisted candidates, vide notice dated 21.05.2022, in which the name of the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner then filed an RTI application. Following receipt of the RTI application, another list was published, vide notice dated 28.05.2022, in which the names of 48 candidates, including the name of the petitioner, were shortlisted as found qualified for the personal interview after completion of document verification. The shortlisted candidates were requested to appear for the interview on 31.05.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the interview along with the other candidates.

6. The respondent authorities, by the select list dated 01.06.2022, published the final list of selected candidates for the post of Principals, wherein 18 candidates were selected. However, the petitioner was not selected. Thereafter, vide an order dated 03.06.2022, appointment orders were issued to the selected 18 candidates as Principals of Adarsha Vidyalayas.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that, from reliable sources, she came to know that she had performed better than the 18 candidates who were selected. As per the advertisement, 23 posts of Principals were to be filled up. However, selection and appointment were made only for 18 candidates, keeping 5 posts vacant, which, according to the petitioner, makes the selection process appear vague and mysterious. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her to at least one of the posts occupied by candidates whose merit position is below her, or to any one of the remaining five unfilled vacant posts.

8. Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the notice dated 28.05.2022, by which candidates were shortlisted upon being found qualified for the personal interview after completion of document verification, submits that since the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 2 in the said list, she is more meritorious