High Court
Case Details
WA 140/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT & ORDER Hazarika, J
Decision
The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dat ed 21.3.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.143 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the selection of the respondent No.8 for appointment as Additional teacher in En glish on contractual basis being illegal has been dismissed. 2. rt are stated hereinbelow;- Brief facts of the case as may be relevant for consideration by this Cou 2.1. Appellant’s case rests on clause 10 of the Notification dated 10.6.2010 followed by advertisement dated 28.6.2010 in respect of appointment of additiona l teacher in English, General Science and Mathematics in Tirap High School on co ntractual basis. The relevant portion of clause 10 of the said notification is q uoted hereunder; (cid:28)10. mic career in the relevant discipline. The candidates having Major/Postgraduate Degree in the relevant subject with B.Ed. or M.Ed. will be given preference. (cid:29) The minimum entry qualification shall be Graduation with brilliant acade The object of the Notification along with the advertisement was issued i n order to strengthen and to improve the quality of the Secondary Education and to engage up to a maximum of three additional teachers on contractual basis in t he core subjects of English, Social Science, Mathematics and General Science. 2.2. In pursuance to the Notification dated 10.6.2010, the Secretary of Tirap High School, Udaypur issued an advertisement on 28.6.2010 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the post of English, Social Science and General Mathematics (on contractual basis), whereof the applications were r eceived for filling up those posts. The instant case relates to the post of Engl ish. Accordingly, the Selection Committee took the interview of all the eligible candidates for filling up of the post of English wherein the petitioner secured 255.19 marks in total whereas the respondent No.8 secured 244.29 in total. Howe ver, in terms of clause 10 of the Notification dated 10.6.2010 along with the ad vertisement dated 28.6.2010 it would reveal that though the minimum qualificatio n was prescribed as Graduate but preference would be given to the Master Degree, B.Ed., M.Ed. and having major in the subjects. 3. The writ petitioner is admittedly a graduate having a subject in English and is thus qualified to submit his candidature for the post of English but in the advertisement dated 10.6.2010 there is a clear stipulation that the preferen ce would be given to the candidates having Major/Postgraduate Degree in the rele vant subject with B.Ed. or M.Ed. The writ petitioner is a graduate having major in Economics and obtained his post graduate degree in Economics, whereas respond ent No.8 had honours in English and is also a post graduate degree holder in Eng lish. The list of teachers approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia reveal that the petitioner who is an MA in Economics figured at 1st place in the Select list prepared by the School Selection Committee whereas respondent No.8, Smti. Binita Tamang, MA in English obtained the 2nd position. However, the Deputy Comm issioner, Tinsukia being the Chairman of the said Selection Committee approved S mti. Binita Tamang for appointment as Additional teacher on contractual basis fo r the English subject instead of the petitioner who had a major in Economics and accordingly, Smti. Binita Tamang has been appointed to act as Additional Englis h Teacher which is the subject matter of the writ petition and on the basis of c lause 10 of the Notification dated 10.6.2010 and advertisement dated 28.6.2010, the learned Single Judge did not find flaw in selecting the respondent No.8 for the post of Additional Teacher in English in Tirap High School and dismissed the writ petition which is under challenge before the writ appellate court. 4. Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also hea rd Mr. A Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for resp ondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned State Counsel appearing for resp ondent Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. P Pathak, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Ch etia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8. 5. Criticising the order dated 21.3.2012 passed in WP(C) No.143/2011 by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant wou ld contend that the learned Single Judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the writ petition ignoring the approved select list dated 7.7.2010 which was prepared by the Selection Committee strictly on merit position in terms of clause 13 of the Notification dated 10.6.2010 wherein he wa s placed at 1st position, whereas the name of respondent No.8 appeared at 2nd po sition and in no event the 1st rank holder can be ignored in preference to the 2 nd rank holder and as such the order is required to be interfered with under cer tiorari jurisdiction. 6. Mr. Pathak, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Chetia, learned couns el would contend that clause 10 and 13 of the Notification dated 10.6.2010 would clearly demonstrate that the Selection Committee did not prefer the name of the petitioner being not in conformity of clause 10 of the Notification prescribing preference to a candidate of having Major/Post graduate in concerned subject (E nglish in the present case) at the entry level itself over the candidates who do es not have Major/Post Graduate Degree in concerned subject and the writ petitio ner having major in Economics and Post Graduate in Economics cannot be preferred against the candidate having Major/Post Graduate Degree in English and therefor e, do not call for any interference with the judgment and order of the learned S ingle Judge. 7. Considered the argument advances by the contesting parties including the pleadings of the parties. The Notification dated 10.6.2010 along with the adver tisement dated 28.6.2010 would clearly reveal that there is a clause of preferen ce. Clause 10 provides for preference. The Selection Committee has inadvertently placed the petitioner in 1st position and the respondent No.8 as 2nd vide Selec t List dated 7.7.2010 which, however, reviewed/modified on 9.7.2010 considering the clause 10, which clearly stipulated that preference would be given to the ca ndidates having Major/Post Graduate degree in concerned subject. The advertiseme nt issued on 28.6.2010 invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Additional Teacher in English apart from other two subjects. the instant case relates to the appointment of teacher in English wherein the prefe rence prescribed is Major/Post Graduate Degree in the concerned subject meaning thereby that the preference would be given to the candidate having Major/Post Gr aduate Degree in English. Admittedly the petitioner is a graduate having major i n Economics along with Post Graduate Degree in Economics and he cannot get the p reference over a candidate having Major/Post Graduate Degree in English, since t he post in question to be filled up relates to English subject. The respondent N o.8 has been preferred by the Selection Committee because she having a Major/Pos t Graduate degree in English over the writ petitioner/appellant herein as per cl ause 10 of the Notification. No fault can be found in selecting the respondent N o.8 for appointment as Additional teacher in English. Learned Single Judge has r ightly passed the order under challenge and as such no interference with the imp ugned judgment and order is called for in the facts and circumstances of the cas e. 8. he parties are left to bear their own costs. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. T