Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010146172024 2025:GAU-AS:17410 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3722/2024 SAYRA BEGUM MOJUMDER AND 5 ORS D/O- WATIR ALI MAJUMDER, R/O- VILL.- SIPORSANGON PART-III, P.O. SIPORSANGON, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2: JOYONTI SINGHA D/O- KANO SINGHA R/O- VILL.- POLARPAR P.O. POLARPAR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 3: ALTAF HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE SIFAT ALI CHOUDHURY R/O- VILL.- NARAYANPUR PART-II P.O. CHANPUR (WEST) DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4: ISLAM UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE SIRAJ UDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O- VILL.- UJANKOPA PART-I P.O. UJANKOPA PART-I DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5: AKHTAR UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O- LATE MAFUR ALI BARBHUIYA R/O- VILL.- BARNAGAD P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6: MIRAJ UDDIN LASKAR Page No.# 2/11 S/O- LATE NAZIR UDDIN LASKAR R/O- KALINAGAR PART-I P.O. KALINAGAR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781019. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI P.O. HAILAKANDI PIN- 788151 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P C DEY, MR BASAB DEY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR. A PHUKAN BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 12/12/2025 Heard Mr. P C Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department for the respondents. 2. The petitioners in the present proceedings have presented a challenge to a speaking order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for being appointed in pursuance to the selection as held for recruitment to the posts of teachers in L.P./M.E./M.E.M. schools in Page No.# 3/11 the district of Hailakandi. The present writ petition has a chequered history and with regard to the issue involved a number of writ petitions have since been filed and disposed of before institution of the present writ petition. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under: The petitioners in the present writ petition had submitted their respective candidatures in pursuance to an advertisement issued on 28.12.1996 for recruitment against the vacant posts of teachers in L.P./M.E./M.E.M./M.V. Schools, situated in Hailakandi District. Although, the petitioners contended that the selection process was carried out and a select list was prepared, the said select list was not published. It was further projected that in terms of the said advertisement, while recruitment was effected in various districts of the State, no recruitment was made from the selection process as carried out in pursuance to the said advertisement in Hailakandi District. The petitioners, herein, who project that they were selected for such appointment on being denied their due appointment, were all along agitating the matter before the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities had subsequently issued an advertisement dated 19.01.2011 to fill up vacant posts of teachers in Primary and Upper Primary School by including, therein, the vacant posts, included in the advertisement dated 28.12.1996 for which the petitioners being aggrieved instituted WP(C) No. 944/2011. However, the said writ petition was not considered on merits, inasmuch as, the same was withdrawn by the petitioners, on the respondent authorities withdrawing the advertisement dated 19.01.2011 vide issuance of a Notification dated 10.03.2011. The petitioners, thereafter, continued to ventilate their grievances before the respondent authorities and had demanded that the selection process as initiated in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.01.2011 be taken to its logical conclusion. The petitioners have also approached this Court again by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5794/2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2016, by directing that in case of any future advertisement being issued by the respondent authorities, the case of the petitioners be considered for such recruitment by relaxing the age bar. Page No.# 4/11 The petitioners have further projected that on 20.05.2006, the State Government had constituted a Commission headed by Mr. Justice S.K. Kar (Retd) to enquire into excess appointments made during the period w.e.f. 01.05.1996 to 20.05.2006 and ancillary issues. The Commission had issued a notice on 30.08.2007 and in response thereto, the then Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board, Haikalakandi had submitted on 31.10.2007 before the Commission the original selection panel list of ME/LP school teachers of 3 (three) constituencies of Hailakandi District. It was further projected that one of the members of the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board had received the panel list by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the petitioners on coming to learn about the said developments approached the respondent authorities to act upon the panel list now coming on record and to effect appointments therefrom. The petitioners project that although the matter was processed by the respondent authorities, no decision having been taken, the petitioners again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1129/2020. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2022 directing the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department to examine the representation submitted by the petitioners and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within the time frame prescribed therein. The said speaking order not having been passed by the Secretary, the petitioners instituted a contempt case, being Cont. Cas(C) No. 355/2023. The respondent authorities in the proceedings of the said contempt case, placed on record an order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education by which the said authority on consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioners had proceeded to reject the claim made, therein, by the petitioners, herein. The claim of the petitioners was so rejected on the ground that the select list relied upon by the petitioners was doubtful and there was no official record available in the matter. The said list not being considered as a genuine list, the claim of the petitioners came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. P C Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners, by reiterating the facts, noticed Page No.# 5/11 hereinabove, has submitted that the selection process as initiated vide advertisement dated 28.12.1996 remains pending, as on date. He submits that the select list in the matter not having been published, the respondent authorities cannot take a plea of the validity of any such list expiring. He submits that in the present case, the select list as prepared by the constituted selection committee, being available with the respondent authorities, steps are required to be directed to be taken by the departmental authorities for publication of the select list and to make appointments therefrom. 4.1 Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the materials brought on record has submitted that the select list in question as prepared by the constituted committee, at least for three legislative constituencies of Hailakandi District, received by one of the Members of the said committee from the Home & Political Department after the records of the selection was seized in an investigation carried out by the authorities, not being disputed, the said selection panel could not have been ignored by the respondent authorities and the authorities were called upon to process the matter further and publish the select list, therefrom, in terms of the Rules holding the field. 4.2 Mr. 4.2 Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the contentions raised by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them in the matter that the genuinity of the select list not being permissible to be ascertained, the said select panel would not be permissible to be acted upon, submits that the said plea taken by the respondent authorities are without any basis, inasmuch as, the selection panel prepared by the selection committee as available and relied upon by the petitioners was so received by a Member of the duly constituted Selection Committee from the Home & Political Department by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. He submits that the entire selection proceeding along with the records of the candidates participating in the selection process were seized by the police in connection with an investigation pertaining to the said selection exercise. 4.3 Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the existence of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee is discernible from the communication dated 28.10.2015 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, which fortifies the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition. The said report is projected to have Page No.# 6/11 also brought on record the fact that it was only on account of the delay occasioning on the part of the departmental authorities that the select/panel list, wherein the names of the petitioners were included, was not taken to its logical conclusion, thereby, depriving the petitioners of their due appointment and an injustice in this connection was held to have been caused to the petitioners. 4.4 Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even if it is held that the select list in the matter was prepared in the manner as provided for under the Rules holding the field, the said select list being under continuous litigation, the validity thereof cannot be held to have expired. The validity of the said select list, if it is held to have been prepared and published, subsisting, there would be no restrain on this Court to pass appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to verify the same and on such verification, if it is found that the names of the petitioners figured therein, the respondent authorities be required to issue orders of appointment in favour of the petitioners, herein. 4.5 Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the stand of the respondents in the speaking order of non-existence of vacant post is clearly a misnomer, inasmuch as, there are enough available vacant posts against which the petitioners can be accommodated in terms of their selection after preparation of the select list in question. He has also submitted that the stand of the respondents that the select list as available in the matter was tempered would not mandate any acceptance, inasmuch as, the said select list was not produced from the possession of the petitioners and or any other private person, but was so produced on being received, under the provisions of the RTI Act from the Home & Political Department. 5. Per contra, Mr. A Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department has submitted that in the selection process carried out in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.12.1996, it is not found that the said process was taken to its logical conclusion as provided in the provisions of the Rules governing the field. A select list is not found to be prepared by the Selection Committee and such select list is also not found to have been approved by the competent authorities of the department. He submits that the petitioners, herein, had initially instituted Title Suit. No. 84/1999, thereafter, they had Page No.# 7/11 instituted repeated writ petitions before this Court. 5.1 Mr. Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that the selection admittedly having been carried out during the year 1996-1997, the select list in question had surfaced only in the year 2012 and that too as a enclosure to the communication issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi on 20.07.2012. He submits that the petitioners in the present proceedings proximate to the time of issuance of the said communication dated 20.07.2012 by the District Elementary Education Officer had also submitted memorandums, requiring the authorities to appoint them against the posts of teachers in L.P./M.E. Schools. 5.2 Mr. Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that the contemporaneous records would be mandated to be perused for the purpose of verifying the genuineness of the panel list purportedly prepared by the Selection Committee. He submits that no such contemporaneous record is available with the departmental authority at any level. 5.3 Mr. Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department further reiterates that the select list in question was not found in the records of the department, but was placed before the department by one Ranjit Kumar Singha, who was a Member of the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board, Hailakandi and it was projected that the same was received from the Political Department, Govt. of Assam under the provisions of the RTI Act. 5.4 Mr. Phukan, submits that in the above backdrop of the facts, the respondent authorities, being not in a position to authenticate the veracity of the selection panel as brought on record in the manner noticed hereinabove, had proceeded to issue the order dated 22.09.2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for publication of the select list and for being appointed, therefrom, as teachers in Elementary Schools in the District of Hailakandi. He submits that in the order dated 22.09.2023, it was categorically stated that the genuinity of the said penal list as brought on record was doubtful. He further submits that the panel list being not ascertainable to be genuine, the stand of the departmental authorities not to act on the said list would not mandate an interference from this Court. He further submits Page No.# 8/11 that the petitioners, herein, have also not brought on record any material to demonstrate the genuineness of the select list, now relied upon by them for advancing their case. In the above premises, Mr. Phukan, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that this Court would be pleased to dismiss the writ petition by holding the same to be of no merit. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioners, herein, had participated in a selection process held in pursuance to an advertisement dated 28.12.1996 for recruitment against the post of teachers in Primary and Upper Primary Schools in the district of Hailakandi. The selection was accordingly held. However, the results were not declared in so far as the post identified in the district of Hailakandi is concerned. The select list was also not published. A number of litigation came to be instituted before this Court as well as before the Court of the Civil Jude (Junior Division), Hailakandi by the petitioners, herein and other persons participating in the said selection process. 8. The petitioners, herein, had also instituted WP(C) No. 5794/2006 before this Court assailing an order dated 21.05.2005 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, wherein, basing on a report dated 04.04.2005 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, the claim of the petitioners for appointment in terms of the selection held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.12.1996 came to be rejected. The said order further reveals that no select list/panel list was prepared or published and the records of the selection were all gutted in a fire. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on noticing the materials coming on record proceeded vide order dated 24.11.2006 to dispose of the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5794/2006 in the following manners:- “The grievance raised in these writ petitions is the same as was raised in WP(C) No. 1725/2006, WP(C) No. 1726/2006, WP(C) No. 3654/2006 and WP(C) No. 3694/2006. Page No.# 9/11 The matter relates to selection and appointment of Assistant Teacher in the L.P. & M.E. Schools in the district of Hailakandi. By the said order, the earlier writ petitions have been dismissed. Thus, for the reasons contained therein, there two writ petitions are also dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by now the petitioners have become overaged and thus, may not be eligible to apply against the future vacancies. It is hereby provided that in case of any further advertisement, the respondents may consider the case of the petitioners for relaxing the age bar of the petitioners along with other similarly situated candidates as per Rules.” 10. A perusal of the said order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would go to reveal that the prayer of the petitioners for recruitment against the posts of Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary and Upper Primary schools in the District of Hailakandi in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.12.1996 was not accepted and the writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for relaxation of the age bar along with other similarly situated candidates as per Rules. The said order dated 24.11.2006 is found not to have been assailed by the petitioners, herein, before any higher forum and accordingly, the same has attained finality. 11. In view of the said position, the claim of the petitioners for appointment as Teachers in Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools in Hailakandi district in terms of the selection held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.12.1996 having been rejected and the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2006 having attained finality, the present proceeding is to be held to be hit by the principles of res-judicata and the present writ petition would mandate to be dismissed. 12. However, having drawn the above conclusion, this Court finds that the petitioners had thereafter instituted further proceedings before this Court including a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1129/2020. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2022 had proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by requiring the departmental authorities to examine the claim of the petitioners and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Page No.# 10/11 13. In pursuance to the said direction of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2022 in WP(C) No. 1129/2020, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education proceeded to consider the issue and vide order dated 22.09.2023 rejected the claim of the petitioners, herein. The operative portion of the said order dated 22.09.2023, being relevant is extracted hereinbelow: “Decision: As the number of selected candidates reflected in the available select list is more than the available vacancy in Hailakandi district at the time of advertisement and the select list available in official records appears to be overwritten at many places hence, the genuinity of the said list is doubtful. Excess selection in respect of available vacancy and tempered select list of candidates bears testimony to the fact that there were certain irregularities in the selection procedure followed. The list available with the Department cannot be considered as genuine list and the claims of the petitioners cannot be considered, thus, rejected.” 14. A perusal of the said order dated 22.09.2023 and the decision as contained therein would go to reveal that the authorities had rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the genuinity of the list relied upon by the petitioners was doubtful. 15. The materials brought on record would reveal that in pursuance to the selection held in terms of the advertisement dated 28.12.1996, no select list was published in terms of the Rules holding the field. However, subsequently, the petitioners have placed reliance on a panel list purportedly received by a member of the Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board, Hailakandi, who had received the same from the Political Department, Government of Assam. The stand of the respondents is that the original records pertaining to the selection not being available, the placement of the candidates in the panel list could not be verified. Further, no select list having been published in terms of the Rules holding the field, in absence of the contemporaneous records, it is not open to the respondents to proceed to finalize the panel list and prepare a select list, therefrom. The said stand has been considered by this Court and on a due consideration of the same in the background of the facts involved in the matter, this Court finds the said stand to be a reasonable one. In absence of the records and that too of a selection purportedly held sometime in the year 1996-1997, this Court in the absence of the materials being placed before it come to a conclusion that the panel list was so prepared strictly in accordance with the merit obtained by the candidates appearing in the selection process, this Court would not be in a position to issue direction upon the respondent Page No.# 11/11 authorities to process the said panel list and publish a select list, thereon. This when considered in the light of the directions passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2006 in WP(C) No. 5794/2006, this Court finds that the petitioners, herein, are not entitled to re-agitate the same very claim which was given a closure by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2006. 16. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioners in the present proceeding would not mandate an acceptance. The impugned speaking order dated 22.09.2023, in the facts and circumstances of the present matter would not call for any interference. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant