Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010236532018 2026:GAU-AS:7425 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7357/2018 BIPUL MECH S/O- BRITISH MECH, SENIOR TEACHER CUM MEMBER OF SMDC OF BAGMIBOR NILOMANI PHUKAN H S SCHOOL, DIBRUGARH, PIN- 786002, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM , SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DIBRUGARH DISTRICT CIRCLE DIBRUGARH- 786001 DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM 4:STRUCK OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 5:JAYA CHUTIA MEMBER SECRETARY OF SELECTION COMMITTEE DIBRUGARH OF BAGMIBOR NILOMANI PHUKAN H S SCHOOL DIBRUGARH PIN- 786001 DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM Page No.# 2/14 6:RUPA DUTTA MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE DIBRUGARH OF BAGMIBOR NILOMANI PHUKAN H S SCHOOL DIBRUGARH PIN- 786001 DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM 7:HARBALLABH DEKA MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE DIBRUGARH OF BAGMIBOR NILOMANI PHUKAN H S SCHOOL DIBRUGARH PIN- 786001 DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM 8:MINAKSHI PHUKAN MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE DIBRUGARH OF BAGMIBOR NILOMANI PHUKAN H S SCHOOL DIBRUGARH PIN- 786001 DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAMUAH, MS. T HAZARIKA,MR. R SARMA,MR. C P SHARMA,MR. S D ROY,MS. K BARPUJARI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR. I RASUL (R7),MR R DHAR (R8),MR N N UPADHYAYA (R8),MR. B B KAKATI (R8) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 26-05-2026 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education, Assam. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has questioned the appointment of the private respondent No. 8, as the Principal of the Bagmibar Nilamani Phukan H.S. School, Page No.# 3/14 Dibrugarh. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, was included as the member of the School Management & Development Committee (SMDC) of the Bagmibar Nilamani Phukan H.S. School. The post of Principal of the school being vacant, in pursuance to the guidelines issued by the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department vide Office Memorandum dated 06-06-2014, laying down the procedure to be followed for selection against the post of Principal in a provincialized higher secondary school, an advertisement dated 01-09-2017, came to be issued by the Chairman of the SMDC of the School in question. For the purpose of conducting the selection in question a Selection Committee was constituted with the President of the SMDC as its Chairman, along with two subject teachers of the School and a parent member. One Harbala Deka was incorporated in the Selection Committee as parent member. The petitioner projects that while the School Selection Committee was so constituted in the meeting of the SMDC, therein, the name of the parent member was not incorporated which was subsequently so incorporated. The interview for the selection was held on 09-09-2017 and the statement of marks so forwarded to the Inspector of Schools by the Selection Committee was only in respect of 03 (three) persons who had participated in the selection process including the respondent No. 8, herein. It is projected by the petitioner that there were in-fact 07 (seven) candidates who had participated in the selection process, however, only the names of 03 (three) candidates came to be so forwarded. The petitioner has further alleged that the parent member had not participated in the selection process, inasmuch as, he is not found to have appended his Page No.# 4/14 signature in the selection committee minutes, however, in the forwarding of the marks of 03 (three) candidates, the signature of the parent member is found. Basing on the said premises, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities with a prayer for annulling the selection process undertaken by the respondent authorities. The representation submitted by the petitioner not being considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1054/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation after giving to the petitioner and others involved including the respondent No. 8, a due opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department, Assam, basing on the representation of the petitioner and the materials coming on record during the hearing held, proceeded vide order 21-07-2018, to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner by rejecting his claim with regard to the challenge presented to the appointment of the respondent No. 8 as the Principal of the School. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the Selection Committee in question not being constituted in the manner as mandated, the selection stood vitiated and accordingly, the respondent No. 8 having been selected in pursuance to a vitiated selection process, her such selection would mandate an interference. Accordingly, he submits that the Page No.# 5/14 appointment order of the respondent No. 8. would also mandate interference from this Court. 4.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents in the matter has projected that the minimum qualification required for appointment against the post of a Principal in a College is that a candidate must possess a Master Degree along with a B.Ed. degree. It is projected that the respondent No. 8 who had joined her services in the year 1999 as a Graduate Teacher had pursued her Masters degree only in the year 2014 without, however, taking requisite permission from the departmental authorities. He submits that the said degree as acquired by the respondent No. 8 would be of no consequence and the same cannot be relied upon by the respondent No.8 for demonstrating that she fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria for participating in the process of selection for the post of Principal of a provincialized school in the State. 4.2 Mr. Sarma further submits that the final advertisement issued in the matter on 01- 09-2017, had mandated that the candidate must not be less than 40 (forty) years of age as on 01-01-2016. It is submitted that from the comparative statement of the candidates prepared by the Selection Committee, it is seen that the date of birth of the respondent No. 8 was recorded, therein, as 01-07-1979 and accordingly, it is to be held that as on 01- 01-2016, the respondent No. 8 had not completed 40 (forty) years of age by reckoning the date of birth of the petitioner as 01-07-1979. Accordingly, he submits that on the said count also the respondent No. 8, is to be held to be ineligible for being considered for the post of Principal and the consequential appointment affected in respect of the respondent Page No.# 6/14 No. 8, would mandate interference from this Court. 4.3 Mr. Sarma by referring to the advertisement dated 01-09-2017, submits that the cutoff date, therein, being prescribed as 01-01-2016, the 17 (seventeen) years’ experience as a Graduate Teacher in a Higher Secondary School in respect of the petitioner being reckonable only w.e.f. 29-11-1999, the respondent No. 8 is found to have also not acquired the requisite teaching experience for being considered for appointment as a Principal in a provincialized Higher Secondary School. 4.4 Mr. Sarma, in the above premises, submits that the petitioner not being eligible to have participated in the selection process, the respondent authorities committed an illegality in allowing the respondent No. 8 to participate in the selection process and accordingly, the said selection along with the consequential appointment effected in her case as Principal of the Bagmibar Nilimani Phukan H.S. School, Dibrugarh would mandate interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 14-01-2018, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 23-02-2018 in W.P.(C) No. 1054/2018 were duly considered by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary & Secondary Education Department and vide order dated 21-07-2018 due conclusions were drawn with regard to each of the said contention raised by the petitioner in his said representation. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conclusions reached in the speaking order dated 21-07-2018 would not mandate interference from this Court. Mr. Kaushik has further submits that the issues raised by the petitioner by way Page No.# 7/14 of filing an additional affidavit in the present proceeding, were not projected before the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary & Secondary Education Department, during the hearing of the matter on conclusion of which the order dated 21- 07-2018 was passed. He submits that the said issues raised in the additional affidavit, would not mandate consideration by this Court. Accordingly, Mr. Kaushik submits that the impugned order dated 21-07-2018, along with the appointment of the respondent No. 8 as Principal of the School in question would also not mandate interference from this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. At the outset it is to be noted that the petitioner is not a candidate for the post of Principal of the School in question, however, being a member of the SMDC of the School, he has instituted the present writ petition assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 8 praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. A writ of quo warranto having been prayed for in the present writ petition, the petitioner would have the locus to institute the present proceeding. Accordingly, the present proceeding would mandate a consideration on merits. 8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent No. 8, had approached the respondent authorities by way of submission of representations. The representations so submitted were submitted by the petitioner through his counsel. In the said representation, the petitioner had assailed the selection of the respondent No. 8 solely on the ground that the Selection Committee constituted in the matter, was not so Page No.# 8/14 constituted in terms of the procedure laid down for the same. The petitioner had further in the said representation highlighted that the parent member of the School having not participated in the selection process, the said selection cannot be deemed to be a selection carried out by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The representations of the petitioner not being considered by the respondent authorities as noticed, hereinabove, he had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1054/2018. The said writ petition was given final consideration by this Court vide order dated 23-02-2018. This Court directed the departmental Commissioner & Secretary, to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner after giving him a due opportunity of hearing along with the other affected persons including the respondent No. 8, herein, and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order on the grievance of the petitioner. The said representation was disposed of by the departmental Commissioner & Secretary by way of issuance of an order dated 21-07-2018. A perusal of the said order dated 21-07-2018 reveals that for the purpose of disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner, a hearing was held in the matter and therein, the petitioner as well as the other affected persons including the respondent No. 8, herein, were given an opportunity of hearing. In the said order with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner that the Selection Committee was not so constituted as per the guidelines laid down in this connection vide OM dated 06-06-2014, the departmental Commissioner & Secretary had concluded that basing on the materials coming on record before him, that a senior-most teacher of the school had acted as the Member-Secretary of the School Selection Committee, as the Principal In-Charge of the School, Lakhi Prasad Saikia, was a candidate for the post. It Page No.# 9/14 was further noticed that one Rupa Dutta a subject teacher was made a member along with one Harabala Deka who was incorporated in the Selection Committee as a guardian member. The departmental Commissioner & Secretary also noticed that the records reveals that one Jayanta Kumar Sarma who was the President of the SMDC had chaired a meeting held on 06-09-2017 of the SMDC, wherein the issue of selection of Principal was one of the agenda items. It was further noticed that the minutes of the said meeting revealed that one Harabala Deka was elected as guardian member for the School Selection Committee formed by the SMDC for selection against the post of Principal. Accordingly, the departmental Commissioner & Secretary further noticed that the panel list prepared by the Selection Committee was signed only by the selected members. The signature of the guardian member was not found, therein, however, the guardian member during the hearing acknowledged his presence on the date of the interview and further held that there was no note of dissent found to have been appended to the said panel list. Accordingly, it was concluded that there was no material to demonstrate that there was any deviation made by the Selection Committee in the selection process. It was further noticed that the decision of the Selection Committee were again considered by the State Selection Committee and the State Selection Committee had also on consideration of the matter recommended the name of the respondent No. 8, for appointment as the Principal of the School. 9. With regard to issue raised by the petitioner pertaining to the delay occasioning in the respondent No. 8, joining the post of Principal of the School in question, after being appointed, the departmental Commissioner & Secretary, had noticed that the appointment Page No.# 10/14 letter in respect of the respondent No. 8, although issued earlier, had reached the office of the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools only on 05-01-2018. It was found that immediately thereafter, i.e. on 06-01-2018, the respondent No. 8 had joined her services. Accordingly, it was held that there was no delay on the part of the respondent No. 8 in joining her services as Principal of the School in question, after she was served with a copy of the appointment order. For the above reasons, the departmental Commissioner & Secretary proceeded to reject the claim made by the petitioner in his representation. 10. This Court on a perusal of the conclusions reached by the departmental Commissioner & Secretary with regard to the issue of constitution of the Selection Committee as well as the delay occasioning in the respondent No. 8 joining her services, finds that the conclusions drawn, thereon, are so drawn basing on the materials coming on records during the hearing held in the matter before him. Accordingly, the contrary position not having been demonstrated by the petitioner in the present proceeding, the said conclusions would not warrant interference by this Court. 11. Having drawn the said conclusions this Court would now consider the further issues raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding. The petitioner has raised an issue with regard to the validity of the Masters degree in Assamese as acquired by the respondent No. 8 in the year 2014 from the Dibrugarh University. It is submitted by the petitioner that the said degree is invalid, inasmuch as, the course involved was so pursued by the respondent No. 8, without obtaining prior permission, for pursuing the said course, from the departmental authorities. The said issue need not detain this Court any further, inasmuch as, the same is no longer res integra and has been settled by the decision of Page No.# 11/14 this Court in the case of Tankeswar Nath Vs. State of Assam [vide order dated 18-12- 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 5419/2023]. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the validity of the Master degree acquired by the respondent No. 8 by pursuing a Master of Arts course in Assamese, without prior permission from departmental authorities stands rejected. 12. The petitioner has further raised an issue that on the date when the petitioner had submitted her application in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01-09-2017, she had not reached the age of 40 years and accordingly, was not eligible for being considered for the post of Principal of the School in question. The advertisement dated 01-09-2017, stipulated that the intending candidate for the post of Principal as advertised must be not less than 40 years of age as on 01-01-2016. The petitioner projects from the comparative statements prepared by the Selection Committee, it is seen that the respondent Nos. 8’s date of birth was recorded, therein, as 01-07-1979. Accordingly, she could not have completed the age of 40 years as on 01-01-2016. This Court on examination of the materials available on record in this connection, finds from the statement of marks prepared by the Selection Committee, that two dates of birth of the respondent No. 8 is borne out, one being “01-07-1979” and the other being “01-07-1974”. The petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate as to amongst said two dates which is the actual date of birth of the respondent No. 8. In absence of any material being brought on record which would conclusively establish that the date of birth of the respondent No. 8 is “01-07-1979”, this Court is not in a position to further adjudicate the said issue and would proceed to hold that the date of birth of the respondent No. 8 is to be deemed to Page No.# 12/14 be “01-07-1974”. Further, the respondent authorities on scrutiny of the particulars submitted by the respondent No. 8, having found her eligible to participate in the selection process, this Court holds that the respondent No. 8 had completed the age of 40 years as on 01-01-2016. Accordingly, the said contention raised by the petitioner also stands rejected. 13. The above discussion would now bring the Court to the further issue raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding in the additional affidavit. The petitioner basing on a RTI reply received has contended that the Dibrugarh University in the said RTI reply had projected that there was no candidate by the name Minakshi Phukan who had appeared in the MA final examination in Education from Dibrugarh University in the year 1999. Amongst the documents received by the petitioner under the RTI from the competent authority also included the mark-sheets issued to the petitioner with regard to the final examination of the Masters of Arts in Education course undergone by her from Dibrugarh University, wherein, the Roll No. of the respondent No. 8 is also borne out. The petitioner is not found to have projected the RTI question by also disclosing the Roll No. of the respondent No. 8, herein. Accordingly, the reply as submitted by the Dibrugarh University, as noticed, hereinabove, would not be conclusive proof of the fact that the person who had pursued the Master of Arts in Education course and appeared in the final examination held in the month of August, 1999 with the Roll No. 4 was not the respondent No. 8, herein. Further it is found that the petitioner had acquired her Masters of Arts in Assamese under Distance Education Mode from the Dibrugarh University in the year 2014. There is no material brought on record to question the validity of the said Master degree Page No.# 13/14 in Assamese acquired by the respondent No. 8, herein. Accordingly, this Court basing on the materials brought on record finds that the respondent No. 8 had the requisite educational qualification as well as the professional qualification in terms of the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003, as amended, for being recruited to the post of Principal of the School in question. 14. The petitioner has raised a further issue to the effect that the respondent No. 8 had not acquired 17 years teaching experience, inasmuch as, she had joined her services as a graduate teacher only on 29-11-1999. The said contention of the petitioner is so based on the presumption that the said teaching experience is mandated by the candidate to be so acquired as on 01-01-2016. This Court has again perused the advertisement dated 01-09-2017 and does not find, therein, that the teaching experience was so mandated to be acquired as on 01-01-2016. The cutoff date as of 01-01-2016 was prescribed in the advertisement only with regard to the age qualification and not for any other purpose. A perusal of the Rule 12 of the Rules of 2003 would also reveal that there is no prescription of any cutoff date with regard to the acquisition of teaching experience set out, therein. It is only with regard to the age qualification that a specification was made that the same was to be so acquired as on first day of the year of recruitment. The respondent No. 8 is found to have completed 17 years of teaching experience as on the last date of submission of the application in the matter, which was fixed on 04-09-2017. Accordingly, the said contention raised by the petitioner would also not mandate any acceptance from this Court. 15. In view of the above discussions, none of the contentions raised by the petitioner Page No.# 14/14 in the present proceeding would mandate an acceptance from this Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant