Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5179/2020 on 15 October, 2025
GAHC010171622020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Principal Seat at Guwahati
Writ Petition No. 5179/2020.
Mohmod Nadeem,
S/o Kalam Ahmed,
Vill. - Bhelakhamar,
P.O. & P.S. - Krishnai,
Dist. - Goalpara,
PIN - 783126.
...... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Assam in the Secondary Education Department,
Dispur, Guwahati - 06.
2. The Director of Secondary Education Department,
Kahilipara, Guwahati - 781034.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara,
P.O. - Goalpara,
PIN - 783101.
4. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara,
P.O. - Goalpara,
PIN - 783101.
5. The Inspector of Schools, GDC, Goalpara,
P.O. - Goalpara,
PIN - 783101.
Page 1 of 15
6. The Selection Committee represented by the Principal of Krishnai
Madrassa Higher Secondary School, Krishnai,
P.O. & P.S. - Krishnai,
Dist. - Goalpara,
PIN - 783126.
7. The Principal of Krishnai Madrassa Higher Secondary School, Krishnai,
P.O. & P.S. - Krishnai,
Dist. - Goalpara,
PIN - 783126.
...... Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Advocate for the petitioner :- Mr. R. Islam.
Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5 :- Mr. N.J. Khataniar.
Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 :- Ms. M. Kalita.
Date of Hearing :- 05.09.2025.
Date of Judgment & Order :- 15.10.2025.
JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N.J.
Khataniar, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education
Department, respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5; and Ms. M. Kalita, learned
Junior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has:-
(i) Challenged the letters dated 28.10.2020 & 29.10.2020
(Annexure - 10 & 11), issued by the Additional Deputy
Page 2 of 15
Commissioner, Goalpara (ADC hereinafter) and Inspector
of Schools, Goalpara (IS hereinafter), respectively and
also the notice dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure - 9), issued
by the Principal of Krishnai H.S. Madrassa School,
Krishnai (Principal hereinafter) and
(ii) Prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities,
more particularly the Selection Committee, to complete
the selection process by conducting the Computer and
Viva-Voce Test of the top ten candidates of the selection
list dated 08.03.2020 (Annexure - 6).
Background Facts:-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition,
are briefly stated as under:-
"Pursuant to an Advertisement, dated 30.10.2019, issued by
the Principal of Krishnai Madrassa H.S. School, Krishnai,
Goalpara, in the daily newspaper, namely Axomia Pratidin, for
filling up of a vacant post of one Lower Division Assistant (LDA
hereinafter) and having requisite qualification, the petitioner
had applied for the same by submitting his application along
with his all educational qualification certificates and mark
sheets, before the Principal of the said school.
The application of the petitioner, having been found
proper, he was called for written examination, held on
08.03.2020 and the result of the said written examination was
published on the same day, wherein he stood first.
Thereafter, on 19.10.2020, the Principal-cum-Member
Secretary of the Selection Committee of Krishnai Madrassa
H.S. School, Krishnai, had issued call letter to the petitioner for
Computer and Oral test, for final selection for the post of
Junior Assistant/LDA, to be held on 31.10.2020 and the
petitioner received the same on 27.10.2020.
But, vide notice dated 30.10.2020, the Principal of the
said school had postponed the Computer and Oral test, due to
unavoidable reasons. Then, on inquiry, the petitioner came to
know that the said notice, dated 30.10.2020, has been issued
pursuant to the letter dated 29.10.2020, issued by the IS,
wherein a direction was issued to stop all kind of appointment
and posting related activities of the institution until further
order and the said direction was issued as per the letter dated
28.10.2020, issued by the ADC without any reason or authority
thereof."
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition by
seeking the reliefs as stated above.
4. The respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara (DC
hereinafter), had filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has
been taken that an inquiry was conducted with regard to the
complaint lodged by one Abdullah Ahmed, alleging anomalies
occurred in the selection process for the post of LDA in Krishnai
Madrassa H.S. School, wherein 45 numbers of candidates appeared
in the examination held on 08.03.2020 and total marks of the
question for the said examination was 80 (English - 20, Assamese -
20, Math - 20, GK - 20) and the highest mark was obtained by
Mohmod Nadeem (the present petitioner) is 70 out of 80 and the
second highest mark is 22.
4.1. It is also stated that in view of the complaint, a field inspection
was conducted on 27.10.2020, at Krishnai Madrassa H.S. School and
the present petitioner was called to the spot and asked to write the
same question paper, which he had written on 08.03.2020. Then, he
had scored only 16.50 out of 80 and as he scored a very low mark
than the main test, i.e. 70 out of 80, the same becomes very
doubtful and though the test was conducted on the same paper after
7 months, his excessive low score is not acceptable and there may
be an illegal way employed for his exceptionally high score in the
written test as there were neither any specific syllabus in the
advertisement, nor the question paper was easy.
4.2. Further stand is that as there is a huge difference in marks, on
two different dates, a serious doubt arises regarding his exceptional
high score in the written test held on 08.03.2020 and that the
petitioner's qualification is BA with 44% score and that a re-test
should be conducted under the supervision of DC and the same
should be conducted in a place outside Krishnai, preferably in
Goalpara and question paper should also be set under the
supervision of DC. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
5. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-reply, denying the
statements and averments made by the respondent No. 3 in his
affidavit-in-opposition and it is stated that in the afternoon of
19.10.2020, the petitioner was called over phone by the Principal
and asking him to attend the school urgently and on his arrival, the
Principal had asked him to enter into his office room, wherein a
person was already sitting there and subsequently, he came to know
that the person is the Executive Magistrate of Goalpara. Thereafter,
the said person requested him to sit before him and handed over
him a question paper, i.e. the earlier question paper of written
examination held 7 months ago, on 08.03.2020, and asked him to
write the answers of the same. Then, he got nervous and he could
not answer the questions properly on the spot as the same has been
done without his knowledge.
5.1. The petitioner has also stated that it is not possible to any
person or any examinee to give proper answer which he had done
several months ago and that too, without any preparation.
Thereafter, on the basis of the same, the DC had interfered with the
selection process, which is fully arbitrary, malafide and without any
jurisdiction to do so and that the written test, held on 08.03.2020,
was supervised by an Officer deputed by the DC himself.
5.2. It is also stated that the written examination can be cancelled
if any malpractices or anomalies have been reported by the In-
Charge of the Examination Centre and that too can be done after
proper inquiry by the Expert Committee. The petitioner also stated
that going by the enquiry report dated 30.11.2020, there is nothing
to indicate that at the time of the said examination, there were any
anomalies/malpractices done and under such circumstances, it is
contended to allow the petition.
6. The respondent No. 5, i.e. the IS of Goalpara, has also filed
affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it is stated that the selection process
was initiated after constituting a Selection Committee comprising of
Zakir Hussain, Faijil Hoque, Mehbub Ali (President) and Moinul Hoque
(Principal) with a declaration that they have no close relation with
any candidates for the post of Junior Assistant/LDA and that the
District Development Commissioner, Smti Kabita Deka, ACS, the
Assistant Commissioner, Goalpara and the ADC, Sri Chandan
Borgohain, ACS, the Election Officer, Goalpara were engaged as
Supervising Officer for the said selection process.
6.1. Further stand of the respondent No. 5 is that the question
papers and the answer keys were kept in the Treasury Office,
Goalpara, pursuant to letter dated 07.03.2020 and thereafter, the
selection process was completed and the Selection Committee had
submitted the list of top ten candidates of written test held on
08.03.2020. Thereafter, the Principal was directed to conduct the
Oral Test of top ten candidates and in the meantime, one filed a
complaint against the said written test and therefore, vide letter
dated 09.10.2020, the IS had directed the Principal cum Member
Secretary of Selection Committee of Krishnai Madrassa H.S. School to
submit a detailed report on the complaint and accordingly, a detailed
report, dated 20.10.2020, was submitted and thereafter, IS was
ready to conduct the Computer Test and Oral Test and requested the
DC to engage Supervising Officer. But, in the meantime, the DC had
issued a direction to stop all kind of appointment and posting related
activities until further communication, vide order dated 28.10.2020.
Accordingly, the IS had issued a letter to the Principal, dated
29.10.2020, to stop all kind of appointment and posting related
activities.
7. Another affidavit was filed by the IS, Goalpara, on
09.01.2025, stating that on 01.03.2022, an advertisement was
published by the State Level Recruitment Commission (SLRC
hereinafter), for Class - III posts against the vacant posts of all
departments under the Government of Assam, which was not known
to him officially and he had issued 16 numbers of appointment
letters to the selected candidates against 21 numbers of vacant
posts, as per recommendation of the SLRC and approval of the
Director of Secondary Education Department and thereafter,
allotment of place of posting to the 16 numbers of Grade - III
appointed candidates were done by the Director of Secondary
Education Department.
7.1. It is further stated that one Pubali Dutta, Junior Assistant, who
was appointed in Krishnai H.S. School, had submitted her resignation
letter before the Principal of the said school, on 10.05.2024 and
since then, the said post is lying vacant.
8. The IS, respondent No. 5 had filed an additional affidavit on
28.01.2025, and there also it indicates that one Pubali Dutta was
appointed as Junior Assistant in Krishnai H.S. School, Goalpara on
recommendation of the SLRC and she had resigned on 10.05.2024.
9. The petitioner had also filed one additional affidavit bringing on
record the Assam Direct Recruitment Commission for Analogous
Posts in Class III & Class IV Act, 2021 (the Act of 2021 hereinafter)
and Section 21(3) of the said Act provides that the provisions of
direct recruitment to posts which are not under the purview of this
Act shall continue to be governed as per the existing provisions in
any rules or orders where these are incorporated.
Submissions:-
10. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, being eligible for the post of LDA, applied for the same
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Principal and on
08.03.2020, he appeared in the written test held and he scored 70
marks out of 80 and stood first. Thereafter, the petitioner had
received call letter for appearing in Computer Test and Vice-Voce
test, scheduled to be held on 31.10.2020, at about 11:00 a.m. But,
vide order dated 30.10.2020, the Principal had postponed the
Computer and Oral Test until further order.
10.1. Mr. Islam has further pointed out that the notice issued by the
Principal was on the basis of a letter dated 29.10.2020, issued by the
IS, Goalpara, wherein a direction was issued to stop all kind of
appointment and posting related activities of the institution until
further order and the said direction was issued as per the letter
dated 28.10.2020, issued by the ADC.
10.2. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent
No. 3, Mr. Islam submits that the ADC had issued the letter dated
28.10.2020, on the basis of one inquiry conducted pursuant to a
complaint filed by one Abdullah Ahmed, who alleged anomalies in
the selection process. Mr. Islam further submits that a field
inspection was performed on 27.10.2020, at Krishnai Madrassa H.S.
School and the petitioner was called to the spot and asked him to
write the same question paper, which he had written on 08.03.2020,
where he had scored only 16.50 out of 80 and as he scored a very
low mark than the main test, i.e. 70 out of 80, the same raised
suspicion about his scoring 70 marks out of 80 in the written test.
10.3. Mr. Islam, referring to a decision of this Court, in the case of
Smti Lina Bora vs. State of Assam, reported in (2017) 2 GLJ
451, submits that DC of the concerned district is neither a part of
school selection committee nor assigned any supervisory rule in
selection and as such, interference by the DC, Goalpara in the said
selection process is unauthorized.
10.4. Referring to another decision of this Court, in the case of
Mehbubul Karim vs. State of Assam and Others, in W.P.(C)
No. 540/2016, Mr. Islam submits that there is no provision in the
Assam Secondary Education Provincialized Service Rule, 2003 (Rule
of 2003 hereinafter) assigning any rule to the DC/District Magistrate,
Goalpara for taking up a proceeding in the matter of selection to the
post of Junior Assistant/LDA and inherent lack of jurisdiction vitiate
the action taken by the DC, Goalpara. Mr. Islam further submits that
similar observation is made in the case of Salimuddin Ahmed vs.
State of Assam and Others, in W.P.(C) No. 2331/2016 also.
10.5. Mr. Islam, referring to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Madan Muhon Sarma vs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2008) 3 SCC 724, submits that subsequent
amendment of the rules, which was prospective in nature, cannot be
given retrospective effect.
10.6. Mr. Islam has referred another decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case Anti Pevin Katti vs. Karnataka PSC,
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 157 and submits that a candidate cannot
be deprived of that limited right based upon the amended rule during
the pendency of the selection process. In support of the said
contention, he has referred another decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sashi Bhushan Prasad Singh vs. State of
Bihar and Others, reported in 2024 0 SC 860, wherein it is
stated that changing the rule of game after the game started is
impermissible and deprived the candidates of their legitimate right
under the previous rule.
10.7. Referring to Section 21(1) of the Act of 2021, Mr. Islam
submits that though Act has been amended, the same cannot be
given retrospective effect, instead it is clarified that any recruitment
process, for which advertisement has been issued, which is at any
stage of recruitment, shall be completed as per the existing provision
under which advertisement was made and as the selection process
started prior to coming into force of the aforementioned Act and is
pending at the stage of Computer Test and Viva-Voce, the same
cannot be cancelled due to amendment of the Act of 2021.
10.8. Under the given facts and circumstances, Mr. Islam has
contended to set aside the letters, dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure -
10), issued by the ADC, Goalpara and dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure -
11) issued by the IS, Goalpara, pursuant to which the Principal of the
said school issued notice, dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure - 9), which is
illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, it is contended to interfere with the
same and also to direct the respondent authorities to proceed with
the selection process and to take the same to a logical conclusion.
11. Per-contra, Mr. Khataniar, learned standing counsel for the
Secondary Education Department, has supported the facts stated in
the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 and he submits that in
respect of the written test conducted by the Principal of the said
School, some complaint has been received and upon which, inquiry
was conducted and a report was also called for from the Principal
and the Principal had submitted a report on 20.10.2020.
11.1. Mr. Khataniar further submits that when the respondent No. 5
was ready to conduct the Computer Test and Oral Test, the letter
dated 28.10.2020, received from the ADC, wherein a direction was
issued to stop all kind of appointment and posting related activities
of the institution until further order. Under such circumstances, Mr.
Khataniar submits that there is no merit in this petition and
accordingly, it is contended to dismiss the same.
12. On the other hand, Ms. Kalita, learned Junior Government
Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 also submits that on receipt
of the complaint, an inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the
same, the process has been stopped by the DC and that the DC has
rightly done the same. Therefore, Ms. Kalita has contended to
dismiss the petition.
13. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the
parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the
documents placed on record and also perused the Annexure Nos. 9,
10 & 11 and also gone through the decisions referred by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
14. The basic facts herein this case are not in dispute. The
selection process was conducted under the supervision of the DC,
Goalpara as per Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service
Rules, 2003 (Rules, 2003 hereinafter). But, subsequently, the
Government has enacted the Act of 2021 and in view of Sub-Section
1 to Section 21, since the recruitment process was initiated under
earlier Rule, the said Act would not stand in the way of completion of
the earlier selection process initiated under the earlier set of Rule
and this proposition is well settled in the case of Madan Muhon
Sarma (Supra), Anti Pevin Katti (Supra) and Sashi
Bhushan Prasad Singh (Supra).
15. It also appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
respondent No. 5 that though the selection process was conducted
under the new Act and one Pubali Dutta was appointed to the post
of advertised for. But, she resigned from the said post due to
personal problem on 10.05.2024, and as such, the post of Junior
Assistant/LDA in Krishnai Madrassa H.S. School, Krishnai is lying
vacant since then.
16. Further, under the earlier set of Rule, under which the
selection process was conducted, the DC, Goalpara, has not been
assigned any role in the selection process and though the
examination was conducted under his supervision, yet he had to play
no role in the Rules, 2003. And as held by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Smti Lina Bora (Supra) and Salimuddin
Ahmed (Supra), the DC has no role in the selection process, his
interference with the same, is unauthorized.
17. That being so, the impugned letter dated 28.10.2020, issued
by the ADC, Goalpara (Annexure - 10); letter dated 29.10.2020,
issued by the IS, Goalpara (Annexure - 11); and the notice dated
30.10.2020, issued by the Principal of the aforesaid School
(Annexure - 9) are liable to be interfered with.
18. Notably, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.
5, on 23.02.2023, reveals that the question papers and the answer
keys were kept in the Treasury Office, Goalpara and selection
process was conducted under the supervision of one Sri Chandan
Borgohain, ACS, the Election Officer, Goalpara who was engaged by
the DC, Goalpara and the written test was done smoothly under the
vigilance of the Supervising Officers and IS, Goalpara and in that
view of the matter also interference by the DC in the selection
process is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be interfered with.
19. Accordingly, the impugned letters, being Annexure Nos. 9, 10
& 11 issued by the Principal, ADC and IS are set aside and quashed.
The respondent authorities are directed to conduct the Computer
and Oral Test by issuing notice to all the top 10 candidates, whose
names were figured in the selection list dated 08.03.2020 (Annexure
- 6) and to take the selection process to a logical conclusion.
20. The aforementioned exercise has to be carried out within a
period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of this order.
21. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and
place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1
(one) week from today.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
