ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 7. None had appeared for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, though the names of the learned counsel are shown in the cause-list. None had appeared for the respondent No. 3 as well.

2. This writ petition was listed together along with WP (C) Nos. 2014/2016 and 1168/2016 and also was initially heard together. However, later on, this case was de-linked and heard separately.

3. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to set aside and quash the select list dated 3.2.2016 (wrongly written as 3.1.2016), whereby the respondent No. 7 was selected for the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) of Rupahi Higher Secondary School and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to select the petitioner for the aforesaid post of LDA.

4. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, in short, is that in the meeting of the School Management and Development Committee (‘SMDC’) of Rupahi Higher Secondary School held on 8.12.2015, a Selection Committee was constituted for conducting selection of candidate for the vacant post of LDA with the President, SMDC, Member Secretary, SMDC, Shri Narayan Bora, Member and Shri Jalal Uddin Ahmed, Guardian Member and thereafter, pursuant to the resolution of the SMDC, the respondent No. 6, who is the Principal of Rupahi Higher Secondary School, issued an advertisement dated 10.12.2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of the post of LDA indicating very specifically that apart from other qualifications as prescribed therein, the candidate must have typewriting diploma in both English and Assamese. The petitioner having fulfilled all the requisite qualifications, applied for the said post and Admit Card was issued for the written test to be held on 21.1.2016 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

5. The respondent No. 7 had also appeared in the written test but to the information of the petitioner, he had no typewriting diploma in both English and Assamese. Information was sought by taking recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) with regard to the documents submitted by the respondent No. 7 along with his application.

6. On 29.1.2016, the respondent-authorities published the result of written test, which shows that the petitioner obtained highest mark with 72 out of 80 and, thus, was placed at serial No. 1. The name of the respondent No. 7 figured at serial No. 2 and he had obtained 68 marks out of 80. The successful candidates were asked to appear for a typing test and oral test on 31.1.2016 and while appearing for the aforesaid tests, the petitioner noticed the presence of an outsider in the Interview Board. It is stated in the writ petition that in the Interview Board, one of the Members, namely, Jalal Uddin Ahmed, was absent and in his place, an outsider was present. Despite doing very well in the written test, typing test and oral test, when the select list was published on 3.1.2016 (should have been 3.2.2016), the respondent No. 7 was shown to have been selected.

7. In the entire writ petition, whenever there is a reference to the select list, date is wrongly given as 3.1.2016. However, the court will refer to the date as 3.2.2016 in the judgment.

8. On 29.1.2016, reply to the RTI enquiry was furnished and the information supplied goes to show that the respondent No. 7 did not furnish any computer diploma document. The information furnished further revealed that the respondent No. 6 himself had engaged one SMDC Member to sit in the Interview Board.

9. By filing an additional affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record an Office Memorandum dated 29.12