SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for respondent Nos.13; Mr. A. Chamuah, learned standing counsel, UGC, appearing for respondent No.5; Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7.

(2.) The appellant herein was the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.37312017. Through the order dated 07.08.2018, the learned Single Judge has set aside the selection of the respondent No.5 to the writ petition and has remitted the matter for reconsideration based on the observations made therein. In so far as the merits of the consideration as made by the learned Single Judge, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.5 claimed to be aggrieved and they have not challenged the said order. However, since the selection ultimately made by the respondent No.4 to the writ petition was interfered with by the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.4 to the writ petition has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge would contend that the consideration as made by the learned Single Judge to take into consideration only the respective sections of the school, namely, the results of the HSSLC section in respect of the writ petitioner and the results of the HSLC section in respect of the respondent No.5 to assess their leadership skill would not be justified. The learned Senior counsel in that regard seeks to refer to the office memorandum dated 19.03.2012 to indicate that through the said office memorandum, the Education Department has permitted the interchange of the teachers depending on their educational qualification. In that regard, it is pointed out that the teachers engaged for teaching ClassIX and X, if they possess the postgraduate degree, are permitted to teach the ClassXI and XII and the indication therein was also viceversa. Hence, it is contended that in such circumstance, the average of the result in both these sections are to be taken into consideration while awarding the marks for the leadership skill, which has been adopted by the appellant Selection Committee and in that circumstance, when a consideration was made, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering.