Gauhati High Court
WA/432/2023 on 16 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010244342023
2025:GAU-AS:12701-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT APPEAL NO.432 OF 2023
Smti. Madhuri Borthakur,
B.Sc., M.A., B.Ed., Assistant Teacher, Mallow Ali Higher
Secondary School, PO: Dhekargarh, District: Jorhat,
Assam.
.....Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam, represented by the
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Education (Secondary) Department-cum-
Chairman, State Selection Committee, Assam, Dispur,
Guwahati - 781006.
2. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam-cum-
Member Secretary, State Selection Committee, Assam,
Kahilipara, Guwahati - 781019.
3. The Inspector of Schools, Jorhat District Circle,
Jorhat, Assam.
4. The School Selection Committee-cum-SMDC,
represented by the Chairman/ President, Dr. Somitra
Pujari, Mallow Ali Higher Secondary School, PO:
Dhekargarh, District: Jorhat, Assam, PIN - 785001.
5. Smti. Deepanjali Sharma,
M.A., Member Secretary, School Selection Committee
for selection of regular Principal, Subject Teacher,
Page No.# 2/7
Mallow Ali Higher Secondary School, PO: Dhekargarh,
District: Jorhat, Assam, PIN - 785001.
6. Shyamolima Bora,
M.A., B.Ed., Subject Teacher, Mallow Ali Higher
Secondary School, PO: Dhekargarh, District: Jorhat,
Assam, PIN - 785001.
.....Respondents
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate.
: Mr. D. Barman, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary)
Department for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
: Mr. R. Sarma, Advocate for respondent No.4.
: Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Date of Hearing : 16.09.2025.
Date of judgment : 16.09.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant; Mr.
N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department for
respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3; Mr. R. Sarma, learned Advocate for respondent No.4
and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Advocate for respondent No.6.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2023 passed in WP(C)
No.3457/2017, the challenge raised by the appellant against the appointment of
the respondent No.6 as Principal of Mallow Ali Higher Secondary School in the
Page No.# 3/7
District of Jorhat, has not been sustained.
3. This case has a long history and the appellant, the respondent No.5
and the respondent No.6 also do not enjoy a good relationship.
4. The appellant was initially appointed as In-charge Principal of the said
School in the year 2011 when that post had fallen vacant. However, within a
period of 43 days, she was replaced by the respondent No.5 vide order dated
08.09.2011 on the ground that Subject Teachers had to be given priority over
the Assistant Teachers in matters of giving charge of the post of Principal of the
School. The respondent No.5 was a Subject Teacher, whereas the appellant was
an Assistant Teacher. The relationship between the appellant and the
respondent No.5, about whose participation in the selection process of
respondent No.6 was objected to and which would be discussed later, soured
from then onwards.
5. The appellant chose to challenge the afore-stated order dated
08.09.2011 replacing her with the respondent No.5 as the In-charge Principal of
the School vide WP(C) No.4797/2011, which was disposed off on 22.02.2012. It
was held that since the respondent No.5 was senior to the appellant, the
decision to replace the appellant with the respondent No.5 was correct. It was
also directed that the post of Principal must be filled by a regular selection/
appointment.
6. The process of selection of the regular Principal was started with the
issuance of an advertisement on 19.06.2016, against which the appellant and
the respondent No.6 applied. The appellant received 1 mark less than the
respondent No.6, who ultimately became the Principal of the School.
Page No.# 4/7
7. The appellant challenged the selection and appointment of the
respondent No.6 as Principal of the School on various grounds but primarily on
the ground of (i) bias in the decision making process especially when she had a
long drawn litigation with respondent No.5, who had replaced her as In-charge
Principal of the School and who sat on the Board of the Selection Committee of
the School; (ii) wrong marks having been awarded to her and the respondent
No.6; and (iii) lastly, the records were not verified when the learned Single
Judge passed the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal.
8. With respect to bias, the contention of the appellant, as noted above,
is that the respondent No.5 had replaced her as In-charge Principal. The
respondent No.5 would in any case have preferred any other candidate than the
appellant. Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that even
likelihood of bias vitiates the entire process.
9. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the proposition on the
ground that the selection was held on 16.11.2016 and if the appellant had any
apprehension of bias or likelihood of bias in the decision making process, the
protest should have been registered on the same day, before the appellant
faced the Board. A representation was filed after a month of selection of the
respondent No.6.
10. In order to buttress the contention regarding bias, the appellant had
argued before the learned Single Judge that the grant of marks was unfair and
clearly reflected that deliberately the appellant was marked less.
The appellant had received 11 marks: the breakup being 5 marks for
leadership; 3 marks for administrative capabilities and 3 marks for
ACR/integrity; whereas the respondent No.6 had received 12 marks; the
Page No.# 5/7
breakup of which was 5 marks in leadership; 3 marks in administrative
capabilities and 4 marks in ACR/integrity.
11. The reason for the appellant to contend that the marking was beyond
the pattern specified was that vide a Notification dated 23.06.2016, for
leadership, the marking ought to have been on the basis of percentage of
students in the School who passed and in the assessment of the appellant, on
that count of leadership, the appellant should have been marked 3.61, whereas
the respondent No.6 should have been given 3.23 marks. The marking for
ACR/integrity column was also found to be flawed as the appellant did not have
any adverse remark in her Service Book and that the marks under that head
were to be given by the Inspector of Schools and in this case, it was
erroneously given by the President of the School Management and Development
Committee (SMDC).
12. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that ACR gradings are
to be assessed by the prescribed Officer but under the circumstance of the
School being a private venture and the assessment was being made for
selection of a regular Principal of the School from amongst the serving teachers,
the assessment was made by the SMDC. There was also no insistence for the
assessment by the Inspector of Schools.
13. Taking the allegation of mala fides and bias further, the appellant had
contended that the Selection Committee ought not to have considered the
respondent No.6 for appointment as Principal of the School as her B.Ed. Degree
was shrouded in controversy. The respondent No.6 claims to have got her B.Ed.
Degree from Deomornoi B.Ed. College, Darrang, which is about 250 Kms. away
from Jorhat with no evening classes and the respondent No.6 had never taken
Page No.# 6/7
leave or permission to pursue her B.Ed. Course.
14. This challenge was also repelled by the learned Single Judge on the
ground that the records revealed that there was evening course available and
the affidavit of the Department of Education admitted that many a times,
permission was sought by the respondent No.6 for attending classes.
15. Be that as it may, we have found that the appellant has independently
and separately challenged the grant of B.Ed. Degree to respondent No.6, which
matter is still pending consideration and has not been disposed off.
16. So far as the charge of the flawed Selection Committee is concerned, it
was out of necessity that the respondent No.5 sat on the Selection Board as
according to the constitution of the School, the Headmaster/Principal/ In-charge
Headmaster/In-charge Principal of the School has to be a Member of the
Selection Committee. This constitution was out of necessity and the School
Management is not expected to know about the hostility between an applicant
and one of the Members of the Selection Board, unless communicated in
advance or objections raised at proper time.
17. With respect to marking, the assessment of the Board ought not to be
questioned now when the respondent No.6 has remained on the post of
Principal of the School for the last 9(nine) years. Even otherwise, the allegations
of bias and wrong marking do not appear to be correct for the reason that the
contest between the respondent No.6 and the appellant was very tight, the
appellant having lost only by 1 mark. Had there been any bias in marking the
appellant, she would have lost out by many notches.
18. While hearing the appeal, we also learnt that the appellant is to
Page No.# 7/7
superannuate by 30.09.2025, thus, having only 14(fourteen) days' tenure, if
counted from today.
19. For all these reasons, we do not find any good ground to fault the
judgment impugned.
20. Even otherwise as held in Kunhayammed & Ors. -Vs- State of
Kerala & Anr. :: (2000) 6 SCC 359 , stronger reasons are required in appeal
to interfere with a reasoned judgment. We find none here.
21. The appeal is thus dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
