RATUL DEVI SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is projected against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 in the present writ appeal.

(2.) As the facts have been exhaustively enumerated in the judgment under appeal, only the core facts may be noticed as hereunder : At the relevant point of time in the State of Assam, a student before reaching the graduate level of study had an option of pursing two different patterns of education. In the Higher Secondary Schools of the State, at the stage of the 8th standard, a student had to opt for any one of three streams of study, i. e, Arts, Science or Commerce. The examinations if Classes VIII, IX and X were conducted by the school whereas after the XI Class, an examination was conducted by the Board. This was known as the Higher Secondary Examination, on passing of which, a student could join in the graduation course in one of the three disciplines. In the other Govt schools, a student was required to appear at the Matriculation/ HSLC Examination after completion of studies in Class X and the said examination was conducted by the Board. After passing the Matriculation Examination, the student had to undergo one year's further studies at the Pre-University level and after passing the Pre-University Examination, which was also conducted by the Board/University, such student could enrol himself in the graduation course in any of the three disciplines. Students under the second pattern, it may be noticed, were required to opt for the specific stream of study at the time of entry into the Pre-University Course after qualifying in the Matriculation Examination. The respondent No.5 herein (the writ petitioner) was a student, who had gone through the Higher Secondary Course, whereas the present appellant, (the respondent No.5 in the writ petition) had undergone the second pattern of study, i.e., Matriculation followed by Pre-University.

(3.) On 26.6.1998, an advertisement was published inviting applications for the post of Principal of the Hema Prabha Borborah Girls' College, Golaghat. Both the appellant and the respondent No.5 participated in the selection process, which was held on 22.9.1998. The selection was held according to a set of guidelines published by the an Office Memorandum dated 17.6.1992. The appellant was placed at serial No.1 of the list successful candidates, which selection was approved by the Governing Body of the college in its meeting held on 20.8.2000. The resolution of the Governing Body of the college was forwarded to the Director of Higher Education, Govt of Assam, who approved the same on 11.9.2000. Thereafter the appellant was appointed as the regular Principal of the college. The aforesaid appointment was challenged by the respondent/petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that in terms of the guidelines circulated by the Office Memorandum dated 17.6.1992 out of the 65 marks to be awarded on the basis of academic attainments, the guidelines contemplated giving of 2 sets of marks to a candidate who had passed the Matriculation Examination and thereafter the Pre-University Examination, whereas in the case of a candidate, who had straight way passed the Higher Secondary Examination only one set of marks was contemplated. The respondent/petitioner contended that the guidelines were therefore arbitrary and discriminatory and as the same were applied to the selection process under challenge in the writ proceeding, the selection of the writ appellant would stand vitiated. The respondent/writ petitioner assailed the validity of the selection and the consequential appointment of the writ appellant on the further ground that in the past, in some instance, notional marks were granted for the Matriculation Examination to candidates who had not appeared in the said examination but had directly passed the Higher Secondary Examination, which benefit was not conferred to the writ petitioner. That apart, the writ petitioner had contended that against the discriminatory treatment meted out to him, he had filed several representations before the appropriate authorities of the State, who in spite of being aware of the genuineness of the claims made by the writ petitioner, did nothing to ameliorate the said grievances, the consequence of which is that the exercise of powers in the instant case has partaken the character of being a pretence or a sham.