[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
The State Of Assam And Anr. Represented ... vs L Mrs Barnali Deka And Anr on 19 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010032722017
2026:GAU-AS:2510-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/211/2017
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY DEPTT., DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6
2: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-1
VERSUS
1:L MRS BARNALI DEKA and ANR
W/O MR. RANJAN JYOTI DEKA,
R/O VILL. MUGKUCHI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN 781443
2:AMAL CH. DAS
S/O SRI ANGGAD CH. DAS
R/O VILL. KOCHPARA DASPARA P.S. BIJNI DIST. CHIRAN
Linked Case : WA/304/2018
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT.
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006.
2: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019
VERSUS
1: MISS ANUPAMA BORA and 8 ORS
D/O SRI PRODIP BORA R/O VILL. HOWRAGHAT WARD NO. 1 P.O. and P.S.
HOWRAGHAT DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN 782481
2:JUGAL CH. LASKAR
S/O LATE ANANDI RAM LASKAR R/O VILL. JAMUNA GAON P.O.
PANDITGHAT P.S. HOWRAGHAT DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN 782481
Page No.# 2/7
3:UTPAL KUMAR DAS
C/O SRI PHANIDHAR DAS R/O VILL. ROWMARI
P.O. CHECHAPANI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 781360
4:SMT. NITALI DEKA
D/O DAYA RAM DEKA R/O VILL. NO. 2 GORESWAR
P.O. and P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 781366
5:SMT. BINDIA DEKA
D/O BIPIN CH. DEKA R/O VILL. MUKUNDAPUR
P.O. BHOGPUR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 781366
6:SMT. NILIM RABHA
D/O KHAGEN RABHA R/O VILL. CHARANGBARI
P.O. and P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 781367
7:SUMIT CHANDRA
S/O LATE SANKAR CHANDA R/O VILL. URDHAGAON
P.O. PARAKHOWA P.S. DOBOKA DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN 782441
8:BABUL DAS
S/O RABINDRA KUMAR DAS R/O VILL. and P.O. RONGKUT
P.S. HOWRAGHAT PIN 782481
9:SMT. NIKUMANI DEKA
D/O SRI TARUN CH. DEKA R/O VILL. DALONGDIA P.O. BETNA
P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BASKA BTAD ASSAM PIN 781366
Linked Case : WA/183/2023
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT.
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
VERSUS
1: SHRI DWADAS ADITYA DAS and 2 ORS
S/O DASARATH DAS R/O VILL. P.O. NIMUA
DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN 781315
2:BHASKARADITYA DAS
S/O DASARATH DAS R/O VILL. P.O. NIMUA
DIST. BAKSA ASSAMPIN 781315
3:ABHIJIT ROY
S/O SRI AJIT KR. ROY C/O JHANTU SARKAR
BIDHANPALLY WARD NO.3 BTAD KOKRAJHAR P.O. KOKRAJHAR
DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN 783370
Page No.# 3/7
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. S.K. Talukdar,
Standing Counsel, Department of School Education and Ms. P. Barua,
Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Das, Advocate for respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal
No.211/2017.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
19.02.2026
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
All the three appeals, preferred by the State of Assam, have
been heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.
2. We have heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam
for the State and Mr. H. Das, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 in
Writ Appeal No.211/2017.
3. The records reveal that in Writ Appeal No.304/2018, though
notices were issued and served on the respondents but nobody has
appeared on their behalf today. In Writ Appeal No.183/2023, steps for
service of notice upon the respondents were taken by way of dasti, but
the respondents refused to accept the same. Therefore, service of notice
upon the respondents in Writ Appeal No.183/2023 would be deemed to
be completed.
4. The challenge in the present appeals is to the judgment dated
20.06.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)
No.804/2017 and two other connected writ petitions, viz. WP(C)
No.76/2017 and WP(C) No.1832/2017, directing consideration of
candidature of the respondents also for appointment as Teachers in
Page No.# 4/7
Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools, notwithstanding the fact that
the respondents have Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) Certificate limited for
being used only in Sixth Schedule areas of Assam.
5. The respondents had qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET)
conducted specifically for the Sixth Schedule Districts of Assam, namely,
the Districts of Baksa, Chirang, Dima Hasao, Kokrajhar, Karbi Anglong and
Udalguri, vide advertisement dated 22.09.2012 by the Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, Assam. The TET Certificates given to them, pursuant to their
training, explicitly state that the same would be valid only for the Sixth
Schedule areas.
6. The dispute arose when two advertisements were issued in the
year 2016 by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, inviting TET
qualified candidates to fill up 6134 vacant posts in Lower Primary Schools
and 5144 in Upper Primary Schools in twenty one (21) non-Sixth Schedule
Districts of Assam.
7. It has been contended that the advertisement in question never
contained the proscription of candidates having obtained TET Certificate
for Sixth Schedule areas only, from applying pursuant to the
advertisement. Thus, the respondents applied and were also successful in
merit, leading to their names appearing in the Select Lists for different
districts but in non-Sixth Schedule ones.
8. Before appointing such candidates from the Select Lists,
verification was made and it was found that some of the candidates,
including the respondents, had Sixth Schedule Specific TET Certificates,
Page No.# 5/7
who, perhaps, could not have applied against the advertisement. In
order to clear the doubt, the State of Assam issued a letter dated
08.12.2016 clarifying that the candidature of such candidates having a
Sixth Schedule Specific TET Certificate ought not to be considered
because such Certificate was invalid for non- Sixth Schedule areas.
This clarificatory stand of the Government excluded the
respondents from consideration for final selection.
9. Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 in Writ
Appeal No.211/2017 has submitted that the afore-noted letter dated
08.12.2016 was legally impermissible, arbitrary, discriminatory and a step
undertaken by the State midway through the appointment process. It
was thus argued that the respondents met all the advertised eligibility
criteria and their exclusion at a later stage violates Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, however, has
submitted that there was a purpose for holding Special Sixth Schedule
Specific TET, namely, addressing the Teacher shortages in remote Sixth
Schedule areas by relaxing standards and restricting its validity to those
districts to prevent migration of qualified locals and ensuring level-playing
field for general TET holders in the non-Sixth Schedule areas. It was further
submitted by the learned Advocate General that this is a separate
recruitment drive for non-Sixth Schedule Districts. In the Sixth Schedule
Districts, another exercise is required to be undertaken, which would be
area specific. In such a scenario, it has been argued, allowing cross-
applications would deprive the general TET qualifiers.
Page No.# 6/7
11. The learned Single Judge quashed the letter dated 08.12.2016
on the ground that an impermissible change in the rules of the game had
been made post selection process commencement and directed the
candidature of the respondents to be considered on merit and
qualifications.
12. In our estimation, with utmost humility at our command, the
reasoning is not correct. The learned Single Judge overlooked the
respondents' TETs restricted validity and the Government's intent to
protect education in Sixth Schedule areas. The clarification, in our view,
dated 08.12.2016, does not change anything midway but only enforces
the eligibility. The TET Certificates of all the respondents specifically
declare that it is valid only for the Sixth Schedule Districts. This is akin to a
negative covenant that it shall not be considered for the districts not
falling under the Sixth Schedule areas.
13. Thus the clarificatory letter, referred to above, cannot be said to
have changed the rules of the game midway. The respondents did not
have the required eligibility and, therefore, they were not selected.
[Refer to Parimal Kumar & Ors. -Vs- The State of Jharkhand & Ors. :: 2025
Scc OnLine SC 210.]
14. The Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak -Vs-
Rajasthan High Court :: 2024 INSC 847 has clarified that the recruitment
process commences from the date of issuance of the advertisement and
concludes with the filling up of notified vacancies and the eligibility
criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement
of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the
Page No.# 7/7
recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the
advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if
such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement,
the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness. It was also held that
the Recruiting Bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise
appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical
end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object
sought to be achieved.
15. In the case at hand, the advertisement clearly specified that the
candidates must have appropriate TET. The TET Certificates of the
respondents is Sixth Schedule specific, which, as noted above, is neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory and has a rational nexus to the object sought
to be achieved. The clarificatory letter is only for the ease and
convenience of all.
16. For the afore-noted reasons, we set aside the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and allow these appeals.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
