Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 8532
Ashutosh Kumar, CJ
Sajal Kamal Das – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
WA/402/2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Appointment / Selection
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The parties have been engaged in a decade-long dispute over the appointment of a school Principal. Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of the appellant's B.Ed. degree and the marking pattern used in the selection process. The impugned judgment directed the authorities to re-examine the marks, which was challenged by the appellant on grounds of constructive res judicata, arguing the respondent had abandoned this challenge in previous proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the dispute had persisted for seven years, leaving the school without a regular Principal. While acknowledging that the challenge to the marking pattern was hit by constructive res judicata because the respondent failed to press it in an earlier writ petition, the court opted to modify the impugned judgment to prioritize finality rather than purely technical dismissal.
Issues: Whether the impugned judgment is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata given the history of previous writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: Constructive res judicata precludes parties from reviving grounds that were available but not pressed in earlier litigation. However, for the sake of concluding longstanding administrative disputes and ensuring the appointment of a regular school head in the interest of public education, the court can issue specific time-bound directions for final disposal of the selection controversy.
Result: Appeal disposed of with modifications to the impugned order, setting a 15-day timeline for a final decision.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.N. Choudhury, T. Kashyap
For the Respondents: R. Barua, S.K. Das, P.J. Saikia, M. Nirola, J. Hatimura, J. Hatimuriya
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's contention on res judicata and approbation/reprobation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. respondent's counter arguments regarding procedural justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's application and modification of res judicata for finality. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 31.10.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 5584 and 4843 of 2023, preferred by the respondent No. 6 herein, whereby the writ petitions referred to above were disposed off by remanding the matter to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, to re-examine the marks allotted to the appellant and the respondent No. 6 and to take a decision in that regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the afore noted judgment, with a specific direction that the Secretary shall give to the appellant and the respondent No. 6 the opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order and, after the decision is arrived at by revisiting the marks allotted to the parties inter se, the consequential action should also follow.
We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. T. Kashyap, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. R. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. M. Nirola and Mr. J. Hatimura, learned Advocates for respondent No.6.
Vide order dated 26.03.2026, passed in this appeal, this Court set out the sequence of events leading to the filing of the above-referred two writ petitions by the respondent No. 6 in the background of the long running dispute between the parties for the post of Principal at Bamundongra Higher Secondary School, Barpeta, Assam.
The relevant part of our order dated 26.03.2026 is being reproduced herein-below for avoiding any prolixity as also for the sake of completeness.
“We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T. Kashyap, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. R. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Hatimura, learned Advocate for respondent No.6.
This is a long-running battle between the appellant and the respondent No.6 for the post of Principal at Bamundongra Higher Secondary School, Barpeta, Assam.
The sequence of events are as hereunder:
On 30.05.2019, an advertisement was issued by the competent authority for section for the post of Principal of Bamundongra Higher Secondary School in the district of Barpeta.
The School Selection Committee had prepared a panel of candidates wherein the appellant was placed at Serial No.1 whereas respondent No.6 was placed at Serial No.2 in the merit list. The list of persons to be considered was then placed before the State Selection Board, which, in turn, referred the list to the Government for its approval.
It may be noted herein that no selection had been made till that time. However, respondent No.6, on being placed second in the merit list, filed a representation before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, making a request to re-examine the select list before the list was acted upon by the authorities.
The re-examination of the list was done by Member Secretary, State Selection Board.
The State Selection Board, after critically examining the list, approved of it, which paved the way for the appellant to be appointed ultimately.
The respondent No.6, thereafter, but before any final selection was made, preferred a writ petition [WP(C) No.7980/2019] mounting the challenge that the re-examination as directed was never carried out and the list which was already prepared, was forwarded for selection.
At that stage, a Be
