IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that no further cause of action had accrued to the petitioners to re-agitate the matter, and that the liberty granted to the petitioners was circumscribed by previous orders.

JUDGMENT

1. The saga involving the recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Lower Primary Schools is sought to be continued and resurrected by way of the instant writ petition, wherein a report dated 22.02.2021, submitted by a Three Member Committee, pursuant to orders dated 22.09.2020 in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020, is being assailed by 66 writ petitioners.

2. The challenge this time around is however, limited to the findings of the Committee with regard to the age of the writ petitioners, 46 in number, who were declared by the Committee to be age barred and the rest 20, who were found to not possess the requisite marks, out of the total number of 66 writ petitioners.

3. It is to be noted that this issue, which has seen multiple and protracted litigation before this Court and before the Supreme Court, has its genesis in an advertisement dated 10.12.2008, whereby applications were invited by the Deputy Inspector of Schools for Recruitment to the post Assistant Teachers. The process of selection culminated in the appointment of 749 candidates, which came to be challenged by the unselected candidates by way of several writ petitions before the erstwhile jurisdictional High Court i.e. Gauhati High Court in the Shillong Bench, with the lead matter being WP(C) No. 106 (SH)/2010. The said writ petitions were then disposed of by a common judgment dated 21.10.2011, which apart for other findings, inter alia, directed for a CBI inquiry with the report to be submitted within a period of 3(three) months. This order came to be challenged by way of a bunch of writ appeals, with the lead writ appeal being No. WA No. 52 (SH) 2011 before a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

4. By a common judgment dated 16.08.2012, the Division Bench, while disposing of the appeals, held that the enquiry by the CBI was not requisite and the matter should have been left for scrutiny and inquiry by the Government. The report of the CBI was however not annulled, and it was directed that the records be reviewed and be rescrutinized by a Committee, which was to be constituted in the Education Department, which could also take beneficial assistance and guidance from the findings recorded in the said report. It was further directed by the Division Bench, that the services of the tainted candidates be terminated; the un-tainted candidates be retained and those who otherwise found eligible be appointed. In pursuance thereto, a High-Level Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the Government, which then submitted its report on 29.07.2013, accompanied by a finding on several tainted candidates together with the observations on other aspects of the matter. As steps were then taken to terminate the services of 246 candidates in the month of February 2014, as per the recommendation of the report, some of the terminated candidates then preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the termination orders along with the said judgment dated 16.08.2012, whereas other terminated candidates, filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the orders of termination. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the matter set aside the order impugned and remitted the matters back to this Court vide order dated 24.03.2017, to be taken up afresh. This Court in the Division Bench, then by order dated 02.11.2017, decided the said writ appeals by passing a slew of directions prescribing the manner in which the process of segregation between tainted and un-tainted/unblemished was to be conducted and the consequential action to be taken thereon. By this judgment, it was also held that the selection process dated 10.12.2008 was vitiated in some centres, and a CBI inquiry was called for, to segregate the tainted and un-tainted candidates and to submit the report thereof, to the Chief Secretary.

5. This judgment dated 02.11.2017 too, came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several Special Leave Petitions, which were filed