MITHU CHETIA BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. L. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for private respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8. None appears for private respondent No. 5.

(2.) The petitioner is an M. A. and she cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for Upper Primary School in the year 2012. An advertisement was published on 30. 06. 2017 by the respondent authorities for filling up the posts of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School under the scheme of Sarba Siksha Abhijan (SSA), Assam. Responding to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School. The result of the selection process was declared on 07. 09. 2017, whereby the private respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were shown to be selected for appointment but the petitioner was not selected. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the private respondents to the posts of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her to the post of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School.

(3.) The challenge to the appointment of the private respondents is made on the ground that they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the aforesaid advertisement published for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Upper Primary Schools. In brief, the allegation of the petitioner is that none of the private respondents had secured 50% marks in graduation from an UGC recognized University, which is a mandatory requirement and, accordingly, appointment of the private respondents, who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is contended by the petitioner that, as evident from the list of selected candidates published by the authorities themselves, the marks secured by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in graduation were below the required 50% but they were considered eligible on the basis of their marks secured in Masters Degree. The further grievance of the petitioner is that apart from the fact that she had secured more marks than the private respondents in their graduation, the accumulated mark secured by the petitioner was 148. 50 and the accumulated mark of respondent No. 5 was 146. 75 and yet the private respondent No. 5 was considered for appointment. It is also contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 5 was 46 years of age as on 01. 01. 2017 and, therefore, she could not have been considered for appointment due to age bar as she had already crossed the maximum upper age limit as stipulated in the advertisement.