Surabhi Dey And 14 Ors vs The State Of Assam And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1615 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Surabhi Dey And 14 Ors vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 24 February, 2026

                                                                     Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010266292025




                                                             undefined

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

                            Case No. : WA/412/2025

         1.SURABHI DEY AND 14 ORS
         D/O- DURJOY DEY, VILL. KALDOBA PT1, P.O AGOMANI, P.S AGOMANI,
         DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM, PIN783335

         2: DIKHITA HAZARIKA
          D/O- PRASANTA HAZARIKA VILL-MUDOI GAON P.OP.S- SOOTEA DIST-
         BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-784175

         3: SEEMA NATH
          D/O-NRIPEN NATH VILL MADULIJHAR P.O-CHAKCHAKA BAZAR
          P.S-SORBHOG DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781317

         4: TAHIR AHMED
          S/O- SULEMAN UDDIN VILL BASATTIHAL P.S RATABARI P.O ANIPUR
          DIST-SRIBHUMI. PIN- 788734

         5: SOLMAN ALOM
          S/O-ABDUL SALAM VILL ANDPO-LAMAJUAR PS-BADARPUR DIST
         SRIBHUMIKARIMGANJ PIN-788701.

         6: ANUPAM DAS
         YEARS S/O NOKA DAS VILL. BIDYARDABRI PT-I P.O- BIDYARDABRI
          P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI PIN-783335.

         7: BEGUM JOBEDA KHATUN
          D/O- LT ABDUR RASID VILL-HATIPOTA PT-2 P.OP.S-BILASIPARA
          DIST- DHUBRI PIN 783348.

         8: KALIMULLAH
          S/O FAKOR UDDIN VILL-SALEHPUR P.O. BARAIGRAM P.S PATHARKANDI
          DIST SRIBHUMIKARIMGANJ. PIN-788723

         9: MAYURI SARKAR
          D/O AJIT KUMAR SARKAR VILL BISHKHOWA P.O-BISHKHOWA
                                                                          Page No.# 2/7

           P.S GOLAKGANJ DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783334.

           10: ARJIFA PARBIN
            D/O ASHAN ALI AHMED VILL KHORAGHAT P/O BARKANDA
            P/S BAGRIBARI DIST KOKRAJHAR PIN 783348.

           11: SHAHANA BEGUM
            D/O KAMAL UDDIN AHMED VILL BAZARGHAT P.O. BAZARGHAT
            P.S. RATABARI DIST-SRIBHUMI. PIN-788733.

           12: TAHIR AHMED
            S/O-ABDUL MATIN VILL- HULASHNAGAR P.O-ANIPUR P.S- RATABARI
            DIST SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ. PIN 788734.

           13: TUKLU DAS
            S/O BABUL DAS VILL- MANASANGAN P.O- RAKESH NAGAR
            P.S- KARIMGNAJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI KARIMGNAJ PIN 788701

           14: SABINA YASMIN CHOUDHURY
            D/O- ISLAM UDDIN CHOUDHURY VILL BHAIRABNAGAR
            P.O. KRISHNAPUR P.S SILCHAR DIST -CACHAR PIN 788025.

           15: HUSSAIN AHMED
            S/O ALAUDDIN VILL- WEST SARKARIBARI P.OP.S- RATABARI
            DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI PIN 788735

                       VERSUS

           1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
           REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
           GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION, SECONDARY DEPARTMENT,
           GUWAHATI781006.

           2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
            KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019.

           3:BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR EDUCATION UNIVERSITY
           ADDRESS 25/2 AND 25/3 BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR RD
            GARCHA BALLYGUNGE KOLKATA WEST BENGAL70001

For the Appellant(s)     : Mr. M. Kalra, Advocate (through Video Conferencing).
                         : Mr. H. Hussain, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s)    : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Department of

School Education.

Page No.# 3/7

-B E F O R E -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

24.02.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. M. Kalra, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education.

The 15 (fifteen) appellants herein have questioned the judgment dated 13.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6409/2025, whereby the claim of the appellants have been rejected as being time barred since they have approached the Court after a long delay.

The appellants are aspiring teachers in the State of Assam, seeking appointments as Graduate and Post-Graduate teachers in Government and Provincialized Secondary Schools.

The concerned recruitment process began with the on-line advertisement issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 26.12.2023, inviting applications for vacant posts.

The appellants, it appears, submitted their application forms and also performed well in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET)-cum-recruitment test. However, they were never considered for selection/appointment for the reason that they had not been able to furnish the requisite B.Ed. degrees, one of the essential eligibility qualifications, for the reason of the Page No.# 4/7

Institute from where they pursued the B.Ed. course, namely, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University did not hand over the results before the last date of filing up of forms i.e. 20.11.2024.

The contention of the appellants is that, realizing this problem, a representation was filed by them on 11.11.2024, for relaxation of this condition, with the assurance that no sooner would the degrees be given to them by the Institute/Baba Saheb Ambedkar Education University, the same shall be furnished.

The grievance of the appellants is that such representation was never adhered to, which remained pending consideration; giving them the legitimate expectation that if it is considered favourably, as such request had been acceded to in earlier recruitment process, by dint of merit, they would make their way in the service with the Government of Assam.

It appears that the appellants rose from slumber only after some appointment letters were issued to the candidates who apparently had not performed as well as the appellants.

It was, at this stage, that the appellants questioned the entire selection process, including the advertisement in question on the ground that it did not contain any relaxation clause which hitherto was provided in such recruitment process.

The writ petition was dismissed and the SLP against the dismissal of such writ petition was also withdrawn.

Later, another writ petition was filed, but only after about 18 Page No.# 5/7

months of the appellants having appeared in the examination, with the grievance that their representation was never considered.

The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dismissed such request.

Another issue raised in the writ petition was that after the process of recruitment had begun, a corrigendum was brought forth in the advertisement on 15.03.2024, recalling the provision of any relaxation in the recruitment terms; which the appellants urged before the learned Single Judge, amounting to changing a provision midway through the process after the game had already been played. The appellants alleged that this was an impermissible change in the rules of the game.

While deciding the issues, the learned Single Judge took note of the contention of the State that the advertisement was issued on 26.12.2023, which was not complete in all respects and therefore, one addendum was issued on 16.10.2024. The corrigendum in question was issued on 15.03.2024, withdrawing the relaxation clause permitting any application seeking condonation/relaxation of any criteria.

The learned Single Judge, therefore, was of the view that when the matter was being decided by him, 20(twenty) months has already passed by after such corrigendum had been brought about.

The reliance of the appellants/writ petitioners on the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. -Vs- High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. :: (2024) 7 SCC 262 and Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai -Vs- State of Bihar:: (2019) 20 SCC 207 was found to be misplaced.

Page No.# 6/7

The broad parameters set out by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. -Vs- Rajasthan High Court & Ors. :: (2025) 2 SCC 1 permitted such changes in the recruitment process even midway, if it did not tinker with the essential qualifications or the modalities of the recruitment process; but any change for the purposes of taking the recruitment process to a logical conclusion.

We, thus, find that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in non-suiting the appellants cannot be faulted with.

However, after having said that, we have taken into account that even till date, as it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, the representation of the appellants have not been disposed off.

We also take note of the fact that subsequent to the recruitment process in question, further recruitment processes have been undertaken and perhaps, concluded. But, according to information provided by the appellants, many posts which were advertised in the recruitment process in question remained vacant, which are required to be filed up.

The appellants have lost of their age because of the intervening litigation but had performed very well in the recruitment process in question and they were not selected only for the reason of their not having obtained and supplied the certificate of eligibility, namely, B.Ed. degree till the last date for filling up of the application forms, which they possess now.

We, therefore, in all fitness of things, seek an information from Page No.# 7/7

the State whether the candidature of the appellants could be considered against those vacant posts, if not already filled up, if the appellants otherwise would have qualified, but for their essential certificate of B.Ed. degree not having arrived at the appropriate time.

Mr. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, School Education Department to take instructions and report to this Court on the next date.

Re-notify on 23.03.2026.

                JUDGE                     CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant