Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8734 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 20 November, 2025

Author: Nelson Sailo

Bench: Nelson Sailo

                                                                 Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010094412025




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:15778

                          THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : WP(C)/2546/2025

         SRI BIREN SAIKIA,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - TALOCHIBARI, PO-BARBALI, PS- BIHPURIA,
         LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT, ASSAM, PIN - 784163



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI - 21
          KAMRUP(M)
          ASSAM

         3:THE STATE SELECTION BOARD
          SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
          OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI - 781006 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN


         4:BIREN BORA
          PRINCIPAL
          KHERAJKHAT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (JR. COLLEGE)
          P.O. BHOGPUR CHARIALI
          NORTH LAKHIMPUR
                                                                             Page No.# 2/7

             ASSAM
             PIN 78700

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D DEKA, MR N J KUMAR,MR S ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR. S K DAS(R-4),MR D BARMAN (R-4)




                                   BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

                                          ORDER

Date : 20.11.2025

Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

[2.] Having regard to the nature of the grievance projected by the petitioner and the issue involved, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

[3.] The writ petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/3166/2021, which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2023 in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was aggrieved in respect of his B.Ed Degree not being accepted for the post of Principal of the school concerned. This Court came to the finding that the B.Ed degree of the petitioner should be taken into account for considering his appointment to the post of Principal. The present respondent No.4 was also arrayed as respondent No.7 in that writ petition and this Court taking into account the fact that the respondent No.7 had already been appointed to the post in question, directed the respondent authorities concerned to give due opportunity of hearing to him before taking a final decision.

Page No.# 3/7

[4.] Aggrieved, the respondent No.7 filed Writ Appeal No.9 of 2024, but the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge came to be upheld by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2024. Following the disposal of the Writ Appeal, the State Selection Board conducted hearing in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge, which was upheld by the Division Bench. The hearing was conducted on 10.06.2024, 23.09.2024 and finally on 21.11.2024. On 21.11.2024, as consented by the rival parties, a lottery was drawn by which the respondent No.4 came to be selected for the post in question. Aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

[5.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner although was present on the date of hearing, he did not give his consent for drawing of lots and therefore, the arrangement of drawing of lots is totally unacceptable to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that when the marks are equal amongst the candidates being considered, the respondent authorities ought to have adopted other procedure other than the drawing of lots. In this connection, the learned counsel submits that as per the Assam Secondary Education (Government Schools) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023, it is provided that when two or more candidates obtained equal marks in aggregate, the candidate getting comparatively higher marks in B.Ed examination will be preferred and if the candidates have equal marks, even in that situation, the seniority of age has to be preferred. The learned counsel submits that even if the said provision cannot be said to be applicable, it will at least have a persuasive value. He therefore submits that the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee should be interfered with by this Court with a further direction to adopt any other procedure as may be permissible in law.

Page No.# 4/7

[6.] Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department in terms of the last Court's order has produced the relevant records and he submits that the parties concerned in fact had agreed to drawing of lots and therefore, the same was carried out. He submits that the Selection Committee had devised this method for breaking the tie since both the candidates had secured equal marks under all the different heads prepared by the Selection Committee. Therefore, as the process of Selection for the post of Principal was on the basis of merit, the procedure adopted by the Selection Board cannot be faulted with, particularly, when the parties had agreed to the drawing of lots. He also submits that there is no malafide alleged against the Selection Board and under the circumstance, the writ petition should be dismissed.

[7.] Adopting the submission made by Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel, Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.4 and the petitioner were present on the date of hearing and it was agreed upon that the issue be settled by drawing of lots and therefore, the said procedure was adopted. However, the petitioner upon coming to learn that the draw of lots ended against him, he has now once again approached this Court challenging the said process which he had agreed at the time of hearing and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He submits that the competent authority is empowered to decide the method to break the tie and since the selection was on the basis of merit as well, the procedure adopted cannot be faulted with.

[8.] The learned counsel further submits that even on merit, the respondent No.4 is more meritorious having scored higher percentage in the degree examination. He further submits that while the respondent No.4 cleared the B.Ed exam at one go, the writ petitioner had cleared the same examination in his second attempt. Therefore, even on that ground the respondent No.4 has Page No.# 5/7

clear advantage over the writ petitioner. He submits that respondent No.4 has been appointed on 29.04.2021 and he has been enjoying the pay scale of Principal of the School since then and therefore, he cannot be deprived of the post except by due process known to law. Under the circumstance, learned counsel submits that the writ petition does not have any merit and the same should be dismissed.

[9.] The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 also submits that the Rules of 2023 referred to by the writ petitioner is not applicable to the instant case in view of the fact that the said Rules is only meant for Government Schools at the entry level whereas, the School in present case is a provincialised Senior Secondary School.

[10.] I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the report produced by Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department. From the projection made by the learned counsel for the rival parties, the issue to be decided is as to whether the drawing of lots can be considered to be an acceptable procedure for breaking the tie. The records produced by Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department has been perused, wherein, it is seen that the State Selection Board which held its meeting on 21.11.2024 on discrete examination under different heads found the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 to have scored exactly the same marks not only in the total but under different heads that has been devised. It was under such circumstance that the Board thought it fit to go for drawing of lots after having the mutual consent of both the parties. Although the report of the hearing provides that after threadbare discussion and on mutual consent of both the parties, the State Selection Board decided to Page No.# 6/7

arrange a lottery between the two contenders, there is no material brought to the notice of the Court to show that a written consent was obtained from the parties concerned.

[11.] Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department has drawn the attention of this Court to the signature appended by the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 on 21.11.2024. It is seen that the same is a signature appended in the attendance sheet and which cannot be accepted as consent given by the parties for drawing of lots. It is no doubt true that, a Selection Board in absence of any provision provided in that regard may devise a method for breaking the tie but however, in the present case, unlike a selection procedure, where, the candidates are not personally involved, hearing was conducted in terms of the direction passed by this Court, wherein, it was mandatory for the parties to be heard. The parties were present on 21.11.2024 and as per the report although lots was drawn with the mutual consent of the parties, the result came to be known to the petitioner only after he filed the Cont.Cas(C)/371/2024 and the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 was given to him on 29.01.2025. Therefore, having regard to the manner in which lots was drawn, this Court is of the view that the same was adopted without the consent of the writ petitioner and accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 is found to be unsustainable and is set aside.

[12.] This Court is also of the considered view that in the absence of any specific provision prescribed under the Rules governing the selection to the post of Principal for the School concerned, the State Selection Board would be at liberty to devise its own method which should be guided by fairness and transparency and further by any other means except the drawing of lots.

[13.] The State Selection Board shall therefore undertake the process of Page No.# 7/7

determination afresh to select as to who should be appointed as the Principal by considering the petitioner and the respondent No.4. The process be undertaken and completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appointment of the respondent No.4 shall be governed by the decision to be arrived at by the State Selection Board.

[14.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant