Possession of essential qualifications by the prescribed cut-off date is mandatory for public employment; administrative representations or legitimate expectations cannot override these criteria, and regulatory clarifications during recruitment do not constitute an impermissible change in the 'rules of the game'.

JUDGMENT& ORDER (CAV)

( Arun Dev Choudhury, J )

1. We have heard Mr. M. Karla, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned standing counsel for the Department of School Education. We have also perused the records and considered the rival submissions advanced at the bar.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-11-2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.6409 of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present appellants came to be dismissed.

3. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere, principally on grounds of delay and laches, and also held that no legal rights had been established warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The 15 appellants before us are aspirants for appointment to the posts of graduate and post-graduate teachers in Government and Provincialised Secondary Schools in the State of Assam.

5. The recruitment process commenced with an online advertisement issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, on 26-12-2023, inviting applications for the notified vacancies.

6. The appellants responded to the advertisement, submitted their applications and participated in the Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET) cum recruitment examination.

7. Their grievance arises from the fact that they were not considered for selection and appointment because they had not furnished their B.Ed degree certificates, which were one of the essential eligibility qualifications under the recruitment notice.

8. According to the appellants, they had successfully pursued the B.Ed course from Babasaheb Ambedkar Education University, but the university had not declared the result before the last date prescribed for submission of documents, namely 20-11-2024. It is their case that such non-declaration of the result was beyond their control and, therefore, they could not be penalised for the same.

9. The records further reveal that on 11-11-2024, the appellants submitted a representation before the competent authority seeking relaxation of the requirement of immediate production of the B.Ed certificate with an undertaking that the same would be furnished as soon as the university declares the result. It has been urged before us that the said representation remained pending and was never formally considered.

10. According to the appellants, such inaction created in them a legitimate expectation that their request would receive favourable consideration, particularly because, according to them, a similar indulgence had been shown in an earlier recruitment exercise.

11. The appellants further contend that they performed meritoriously in the recruitment test and that certain candidates who had secured lesser merit were subsequently issued appointment letters. According to them, it was at that stage that they were compelled to challenge the recruitment process.

12. Another limb of challenge is directed against a corrigendum dated 15-3-2024, by which the provisions enabling condonation or relaxation of eligibility criteria stood withdrawn. The submission is that once the recruitment process had commenced, such an alteration amounted to ch