Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010249122025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6409/2025 SURABHI DEY AND 14 ORS. D/O- DURJOY DEY, VILL. KALDOBA PT-1, P.O AGOMANI, P.S AGOMANI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783335. 2: DIKHITA HAZARIKA D/O- PRASANTA HAZARIKA VILL- MUDOI GAON P.O AND P.S- SOOTEA DIST- BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-784175 3: SEEMA NATH D/O-NRIPEN NATHa VILL- MADULIJHAR P.O-CHAKCHAKABAZAR P.S- SORBHOG DIST -BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN-781317 4: TAHIR AHMED S/O- SULEMAN UDDIN VILL- BASATTIHAL P.S- RATABARI P.O- ANIPUR DIST- SRIBHUMI. PIN- 788734 5: SOLMAN ALOM S/O- ABDUL SALAM VILL AND P.O- LAMAJUAR P.S- BADARPUR DIST- SRIBHUMI PIN-788701 Page No.# 2/15 6: ANUPAM DAS S/O NOKA DAS VILL. BIDYARDABRI PT-I P.O- BIDYARDABRI P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI PIN-783335 7: BEGUM JOBEDA KHATUN D/O- LT. ABDUR RASID VILL- HATIPOTA PT-2 P.O AND P.S- BILASIPARA DIST-DHUBRI PIN- 783348 8: KALIMULLAH S/O FAKOR UDDIN VILL- SALEHPUR P.O.BARAIGRAM P.S- PATHARKANDI DIST- SRIBHUMI. PIN-788723 9: MAYURI SARKAR D/O AJIT KUMAR SARKAR VILL- BISHKHOWA P.O- BISHKHOWA P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI(ASSAM) PIN 783334 10: ARJIFA PARBIN D/O ASHAN ALI AHMED VILL- KHORAGHAT P/O- BARKANDA P/S- BAGRIBARI DIST- KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783348 11: SHAHANA BEGUM D/O KAMAL UDDIN AHMED VILL- BAZARGHAT P.O.- BAZARGHAT P.S.- RATABARI DIST- SRIBHUMI. PIN-788733 12: TAHIR AHMED Page No.# 3/15 S/O- ABDUL MATIN VILL- HULASHNAGAR P.O- ANIPUR P.S- RATABARI DIST- SRIBHUMI.PIN- 788734 13: TUKLU DAS S/O BABUL DAS VILL- MANASANGAN P.O- RAKESHNAGAR P.S- KARIMGNAJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI PIN 788701 14: SABINA YASMIN CHOUDHURY D/O- ISLAM UDDIN CHOUDHURY VILL- BHAIRABNAGAR P.O.- KRISHNAPUR P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR PIN- 788025 15: HUSSAIN AHMED S/O ALAUDDIN VILL- WEST SARKARIBARI P.O AND P.S- RATABARI DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI PIN-78873 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION, SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 3:BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR EDUCATION UNIVERSITY 25/2 AND 25/3 BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR RD GARCHA BALLYGUNGE KOLKATA WEST BENGAL-70001 Page No.# 4/15 Advocate for the Petitioner : S. HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 13.11.2025 Heard Mr. M. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam-cum- Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in Secondary Education Department. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside/quashing the corrigendum, dated 15.03.2024, and to allow the petitioners to avail the relaxation, as per original terms/rules; and also to issue direction to the Department of Secondary Education, Assam to consider the petitioners for the vacant posts, as per merit, after re-conducting the document verification and to declare the petitioners eligible for the same; and to direct the respondent No. 3, i.e., Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners/other similarly placed persons, prior to the last date of application. 3. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 26.12.2023, for filling up the vacant posts of Graduate and Post-Graduate Teachers in different Government Secondary Schools and in different provincialised Secondary Schools, the petitioners responded to the same by submitting their respective applications and documents online, before the last date of submission of Page No.# 5/15 the forms. 3.1. Referring to the said advertisement, dated 26.12.2023, Mr. Kalra submits that the advertisement clearly provides that the application, seeking condonation/relaxation of any criteria should be made to appropriate authority, as per applicable norms, at least 7 days prior to filling up of online applications. And thereafter, to the disadvantage of the petitioners, the said relaxation was withdrawn by issuing the impugned corrigendum on 15.03.2024, and by issuing such corrigendum, the respondent authorities have changed the rule of the game midway and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. Rajasthan High Court, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, such changes made midway by withdrawing of the relaxation is impermissible. He has also referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal and Another, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 179, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules, where the method of final selection by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written and the viva voce examinations is specified categorically.” 3.2. Mr. Kalra, further submits that the petitioners had performed well in the written examination, so conducted by the respondent authorities and they have also secured higher marks, but when their certificates and testimonials were verified by the respondent authorities, their candidature came to be rejected on the ground that they have cleared the B. Ed. Degree from the Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University, after the last date of submission of online application, i.e., 20.11.2024; and that the said university has failed to adhere to the timeline issued Page No.# 6/15 by them in conducting the examination and in declaring the result; and that, unless an opportunity is given to the petitioners, they, inspite of doing well in the interview, and inspite of being meritorious, will be deprived of getting the job and ultimately, the society, more particularly the students community, will be deprived of getting the service of meritorious teachers. 3.3. Mr. Kalra has also drawn the attention of this Court to page No. 60, Annexure P/2 of the petition, and submits that the petitioners have filed one representation on 11.11.2024, so as to consider their candidature, but the same is yet to be disposed of. He also pointed out that on earlier occasion; the State respondents had allowed some of the candidates to participate in the selection process, however, in case of the petitioner the same had not been denied. 3.4. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, Mr. Kalra submits that at this stage, notice may be issued to the respondent authorities and an interim order may be passed, directing the respondent authorities to keep 15 posts vacant till disposal of the petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General Assam-cum- Senior Counsel, has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Saikia, firstly, submits that the present petition is not at all maintainable on account of delay/laches and acquiescence. 4.1. Secondly, Mr. Saikia submits that though, the petitioners have enclosed the representation, dated 11.11.2024, yet, in page No. 58, i.e., the typed copy of the representation, the date is mentioned as ‘11.11.2025’, which is two days prior to today and as such, he has serious doubt about the genuineness of this document and therefore, he submits that he may be granted some time to verify as to Page No.# 7/15 whether such representation was filed on 11.11.2024, or on 11.11.2025. 4.2. Thirdly, Mr. Saikia submits that though, the advertisement was issued on 26.12.2023, yet, the same was not a complete advertisement, as, subsequent to the said advertisement, one addendum was issued on 16.10.2024. And the corrigendum was issued on 15.03.2024, withdrawing the relaxation clause, that any application, seeking the condonation/relaxation of any criteria should be made to appropriate authority, as per applicable norms, at least seven days prior to filling up of online application, appears at Serial No. ‘ f ’, under the head ‘Please Note’, in the advertisement, dated 26.12.2023. The corrigendum, which is being impugned herein this petition was issued more than 20 months back and the petitioners have not challenged the same in the earlier round of litigation before the learned Single Judge of this Court, in WP(C) No. 3929/2025, filed by them challenging the rejection of their candidature on account of failing to acquire B.Ed. Degree and Diploma in Assamese. In the said petition, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the petition and the same was challenged in the Writ Appeal No. 267/2025, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.09.2025, was pleased to upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge and thereafter, the petitioners went to the Supreme Court and filed Special Leave (Civil) Diary No. 59256/2025 and the same was withdrawn, by the petitioners when the Court was about to dismiss the petition. 4.3. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, Mr. Saikia submits that having not challenged the impugned corrigendum at the earliest, in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition on account of delay/laches. Page No.# 8/15 Mr. Saikia has pointed out that after the corrigendum being issued, they have participated in the process and having failed to produce their B.Ed. Certificate in time and now they cannot challenge the corrigendum on account of acquiescence. 4.4. Mr. Saikia also submits that having failed in earlier round of litigation and having not challenged the corrigendum at the earliest opportunity, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition on a different ground, and nowhere in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners had taken a plea about filing of the representation, dated 11.11.2024. 4.5. Further contention of Mr. Saikia is that the selection process has already been completed and the respondent authorities are ready to issue the appointment letters to the selected candidates with in 2/3 days and if, at this stage, by granting interim relief, the respondent authorities are directed not to fill up 15 Nos. of posts, then the candidates, selected already, who are also not a party in this proceeding and who are waiting for their appointment, will be deprived of getting appointment, for no fault of them and as such, serious prejudice will be caused to them. 4.6. Mr. Saikia, further submits that the eligibility criteria in the advertisement has not been changed by the respondent authorities, by issuing the corrigendum. And as such, the decision referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) would not come into their assistance. 4.7. However, Mr. Saikia submits that if, the Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to dispose of their representation, dated 11.11.2024, then the respondent authorities will dispose of the same by a speaking order, within a period of 3 days. Page No.# 9/15 4.8. Lastly, Mr. Saikia also submits that appointment of teachers is a regular and continuous process and since the petitioner herein had failed to acquire the requisite qualification on the date of advertisement and before the timeline fixed by the authorities, they will be able to participate in the next selection process and as such, no prejudice will be caused to them. Under such circumstances, Mr. Saikia has contended to dismiss this petition. 5. In reply to the submission of Mr. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Special Leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was a withdrawal simpliciter and it is incorrect to say that when the Court was about to dismiss the petition, the petitioners had withdrawn the same. Further, he pointed out that the delay and acquiescence principle is not applicable herein this case and when a statutory provision is violated then one can challenge the selection process even after participation also. In support of his submission, he has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhimeet Sinha and Others Vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna and Others, reported in (2024)7 SCC 262; and Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 207. 5.1. It is to be noted here that in the case of Abhimeet Sinha and Others (supra), taking note of earlier decisions on the subject, including the decision in Meeta Sahai (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and Page No.# 10/15 discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.” 5.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the representation was filed by the petitioners on 11.11.2024 and since then the same was not disposed of till date and the authorities have acknowledged the same also by giving receipt number and as such the same cannot be doubted. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that on account of delayed declaration of the result by the University, the petitioners had failed to obtain the certificate in time and the petitioners have no control over the same. Therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 6. Having heard the submissions so advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the advertisement, dated 26.12.2023, the addendum and the impugned corrigendum dated 15.03.2024, the representation dated 11.11.2024, filed by the petitioners and also the decision of the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 3929/2025, filed by the petitioners herein, and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 267/2025, and in the connected matters and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59256/2025. 7. It is a fact that in earlier round of litigation, the petitioners have not disclosed about the representation, filed by them on 11.11.2024. Further, it appears that Page No.# 11/15 while the advertisement was issued on 26.12.2023, and in continuation of the same, another addendum was issued on 16.10.2024. And the impugned corrigendum was issued on 15.03.2024. And after issuance of the corrigendum, more than 20 months elapsed. And after 20 months, when the recruitment process is completed, the petitioners have suddenly got up and challenging the same in this petition. 8. Admittedly, nowhere in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. WP(C) No. 3929/ 2025, in Writ Appeal No. 267/2025 and in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59256/2025, they have raised the issue of impugned corrigendum and also the representation dated 11.11.2024, inspite of getting the earliest opportunity. Now, after 20 months they suddenly got up and filed the present petition with this new cause of action that rule of game has been changed after the game has started and that the representation dated 11.11.2024, has not been disposed of, having not disclosed the same at the earliest opportunity got by them in earlier round of litigation, and without there being any explanation for the delay. Mr. Saikia, the learned Advocate General, for the state respondents, has rightly pointed this out and there appears to be substance in his submission, and the decision, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others (supra), so referred by him, also has strengthened his submission. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para No. 16 and 17, has held as under:- “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive Page No.# 12/15 to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said Page No.# 13/15 ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 9. In the case in hand from the petition and also from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is unable to find any explanation for the delay of 20 months in challenging the corrigendum, dated 15.03.2024, and also raising the issue of representation dated 11.11.2024. The learned Advocate General has made a categorical statement to the effect that the selection process has already been completed and list of selected candidates has already been finalized and within 2/3 days appointment letter will be issued to them and if at this stage this petition is entertained and if interim order is passed, then it will cause serious prejudice to the already selected candidates. 10. Thus, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others (supra), this Court is under obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. And having scrutinized the same and having found no explanation for the delay not to speak of plausible one, forthcoming from the petitioners and also taking note of the submission of Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, for state respondents, this Court is of the view that delay of 20 months in challenging the impugned corrigendum dated 15.03.2024, without there being any justification, cannot be ignored. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that remaining innocuously oblivious for 20 long months, does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it would cause serious prejudice to the already selected candidates, if the petitioner is entertained at this belated stage. 11. Further, judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. Page No.# 14/15 3929/2025 reveals that the last date for submission of application was 20.11.2024 and on that date, the petitioners had failed to clear/ acquire their B.Ed. certificates and the said finding has already attained finality by getting imprimatur from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. This Court has gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para No.65.2 as under:- “65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;” 12.1.There is no quarrel at the Bar about the aforesaid proposition of law laid down in the said case. But, this Court is afraid, the ratio laid down in the said case, would not come into assistance of the petitioners as indisputably, the respondent authorities have not changed any eligibility criteria, as already published in the advertisement by issuing the impugned corrigendum, dated 15.03.2024. The respondent authorities, have only withdrawn the column in the advertisement, by which, relaxation was provided at Serial No. ‘f’ of the Advertisement, dated 26.12.2023. Moreover, the issue of change of rule of game, after the game has started, was also unsuccessfully pleaded in the earlier round of litigation. 12.2.It is however, a fact that a corrigendum cannot override the statutory Rule. It Page No.# 15/15 is well settled in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh (supra). But, in challenging the same, the petitioner herein had caused inordinate delay of 20 months without there being any plausible explanation and despite getting sufficient opportunity they failed to raise the same in the earlier round of litigation. While exercising the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not in a position to entertain this petition at this belated stage. As held in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others (supra), the inordinate and unexplained delay comes in the way of equity. 13. Thus, having gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, in the light of the decisions referred by them, this Court is of the view that this petition cannot be entertained at the fage end of the recruitment process when the respondent authorities are ready to appoint the selected candidates within 2/3 days from today. Even if at this stage, i.e. at the fag end of the recruitment process, a direction is issued to the respondent authorities, to dispose of the representation, the same would be an empty formality only and no purpose will be served thereby. 14. In the result, this petition stands dismissed at this motion stage itself leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant