AMAR SHEEL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Identical issue being raised in these writ petitions, the same are taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by challenging the exclusion of the petitioners from the select list of candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools pursuant to two advertisements dtd. 11/3/2018. It the case of the petitioners that they had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate and yet, they have been left out in the select list. The only discernible reason appears to be non-possessing of the TET / Dl. Ed. qualification before the petitioners had attained an upper age limit. It is the case of the petitioners that in any event, all of them had the qualification of TET / Dl. Ed. prior to the selection process. The petitioners have placed reliance upon a development during the pendency of the writ petitions which, as per the petitioners, would bring the entire controversy to rest and there would not be any hurdle / hindrance in considering the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers.

(3.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted in tandem that the principal issue has already been decided by this Court vide a judgment and order dtd. 9/11/2021 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, including WP(C)/345/2021 (Smti. Ajanta Ray Vs. State of Assam and Ors.). That being the position, narration of the facts of each case is considered unnecessary. Suffice it to mention that the grievance of the petitioners are in connection with denying them the benefit of appointment as Assistant Teacher of Lower and Upper Primary Schools in spite of being placed higher than the candidates who have been offered such appointment. The only discernible reason, as indicated above, is inability to acquire the qualification of TET / Dl. Ed. before a particular date. There is however, no dispute to the fact that all the petitioners are otherwise equipped with the qualification of TET / Dl. Ed. prior to the date when the recruitment process had begun.