The Selection Committee must consider all relevant documents and qualifications of the candidates while making the selection.

ORDER

10.01.2022 The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

Heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the appellant in WA 350/2021 as well as Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant in WA 340/2021. Also heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for the State respondents as well as Mr. H.R.A.

Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the private respondent no. 1.

The appellants before this Court have challenged the order dated

09.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3208/2021, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (i.e. private respondent no. 1 in these appeals) was allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that the Managing Committee of Abbas Ali Choudhury Memorial H.S. School, in the district of Barpeta, Assam, vide Notice dated 04.03.2019 invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of regular Principal of the said school. The writ petitioner and the writ appellant in WA 350/2021 along with four others had appeared in the interview before the School Selection Committee. After the selection process was over, the School Authority forwarded a panel list of three candidates to the concerned authority for approval. Since the writ petitioner’s name was not included in the panel list prepared by the School Selection Committee, he filed the writ petition contending, inter alia, that the Experience Certificate submitted by him had not been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee and, resultantly, he had not been awarded 3 marks against “Experience” Column and 2 marks for working as Principal in-charge. According to the writ petitioner, the selected three candidates had been awarded 18, 17 and 16 marks respectively and the petitioner had been given 14 marks. Had he been awarded marks against “Experience” Column, he would have been included in the panel list prepared by the School Selection Committee, as then he would have got 19 works.

In the writ proceeding, the case of the respondent no. 6 (i.e. appellant in WA 350/2021) was that the writ petitioner (private respondent no. 1 before this) court did not submit the “Experience Certificate” nor did he have the requisite qualification at the time of interview.

The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner had been wrongly denied these marks and directed the School Selection Committee to send the panel of three names by incorporating the marks in respect of the writ petitioner against “Experience” column. While coming to this conclusion, the learned Single Judge had also considered a letter dated 10.09.2019 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, wherein it was categorically stated that the writ petitioner had submitted the required “Experience Certificate”.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no anomaly in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeals by directing the School Selection Committee to reconsider the matter as per Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 and forward the same to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, for approval. While reconsidering the matter, the School Selection Committee shall also look into the contention of the writ appellants that the petitioner was not qualified as he had not done his post-graduation as per law.

Let the School Selection Committee do the needful within one week from today and, thereafter, send the matter to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, so that the matter is not delayed any further.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant