- (1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Mahanta, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Also heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 9 and Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury as well as Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondent No.10.
(2.) The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioner passed HSLC Examination in 3rd division, HSSLC Examination in 3rd division and BA Examination in 2nd class and that he had also completed Ratnamala Vyakarana Sastri in the year 2002 in 2nd division. He was appointed as temporary Assistant Graduate Teacher (Arts) in Kaina Dhara M.E. School on 01.06.2000 and continued as such till 02.02.2008, for a period of 8(eight) years 1(one) month. He responded to an advertisement published in the Assam Tribune on 19.08.2010 inviting applications for appointment to the post of second Adhyapaka in Srimanta Sankar Sanskrit Vidyapith. He was called for the interview held on 20.09.2010, which was, however, deferred to 09.11.2010. He appeared in the interview and thereafter, came to learn that the Government nominated members in the Selection Committee was interested to appoint respondent No.10 and as such, before appointment of the respondent No.10, filed an application dated 15.11.2010 to the respondent No.2 to look into the matter. No select list was published, but the respondent No.10 was appointed. From the documents furnished on an application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he could learn that the respondent No.10 secured first position with 66.5 marks and the petitioner had secured second position with 61.8 marks and the mark-sheets of the interviewed candidates prepared by the Members of the Selection Committee indicated that respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8, who were part of the Selection Committee, had committed irregularities at the time of preparing the mark-sheets. It is alleged that the respondent No.5 initially had given 12 marks to the respondent No.10, which was subsequently converted to 14 and that he had also overwritten the marks awarded for experience. With regard to the respondent No.7, it is stated that he changed the experience mark awarded in respect of the respondent No.10 from "3" to "8" and that respondent No.8 changed interview marks in favour of the respondent No.10 from "10" to "12". It was also mentioned that the respondent No.9 had also overwritten the mark of the petitioner under the heading of "Experience". It is further alleged that according to the resolution of the Selection Committee, as the respondent No.10 had secured 3rd division in Ratnamala Vyakarana Sastri, he should have got 5 marks for the said qualification but instead, the Selection Committee awarded him 10 marks. The respondent No.10 had experience as a teacher for only 2(two) years 7(seven) months as compared to 8(eight) years 1(one) month as that of the petitioner and yet the respondent Nos.6 and 8 did not award any mark on the head of "Experience" but had awarded 3 marks each, on that count to the respondent No.10.
(3.) By the time, the writ petition was filed, the respondent No.10 was already appointed and he had also joined in the school and, therefore, there was no prayer for stay in the writ petition wherein, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the appointment of the respondent No.10 as second Adhyapaka in Srimanta Sankar Sanskrit Vidyapith and also prayed for a direction to appoint him as second Adhyapaka in Srimanta Sankar Sanskrit Vidyapith on proper evaluation of the marks by an Expert Committee.;