WP(C) 6577/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI A notification, containing a scheme for engagement of three additional t eachers, on contractual basis, in four subjects, namely, English, Social Science s, Mathematics and General Science, in higher secondary schools was issued by th e Education (Elementary and Secondary) Department, Government of Assam, on 10-06 -2010. The minimum prescribed educational qualification, in terms of the said no tification, was graduate in Arts, Science or Commerce making it, however, clear that post-graduate candidate would be given preference. Pursuant to the notification, dated 10-06-2010, an advertisement was published i nviting applications for selection and engagement of teachers by Janapriya Highe r Secondary School, Ghugubari, Barpeta, with the respondent No. 5 as its Princip al. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 herein, namely, Abul Hussain, who is the son of the respondent No. 5, namely, Sri Amzad Hussain, applied alon g with other candidates. An interview was accordingly held and in the interview, the respondent No. 6, who is the son of the respondent No. 5, was selected and appointed as a teacher in the said school. In terms of the letter, dated 30-06-2 011, issued by the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta District Circle, Barpeta. The a ppointment has been extended by order, dated 30-06-2011, for a period of 11 mont hs with effect from 01-08-2011. Heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. AD Choudhur y, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of the re spondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Heard also Mr. BC Saikia, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, and Mr. MK Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that t he Interview Board consisted of the respondent No. 5 as the member secretary by virtue of his holding the office of the Principal of Janapriya Higher Secondary School, Ghugubari, Barpeta. Though respondent No. 5, as Principal of the said sc hool, is a competent person to become the Member Secretary of the Board, the fac t of the matter remains that he could not have participated in the interview, wh ere his son was a candidate. In such circumstances, the selection of the respond ent No. 6 cannot be sustained. It has been submitted, on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel, that the respondent No. 6 is a post graduate, whereas t he petitioner is a graduate only and as per the notification, dated 10-06-2010, a post graduate candidate was required to be given preference over a graduate. S uffice it to mention, in this regard, that the petitioner was eligible to partic ipate in the selection process inasmuch as he has the minimum prescribed qualifi cation. The question was, therefore, of selecting a person for appointment to th e post for which the respondent No. 6 has been selected. Since respondent No. 6 is the son of the respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 5 could neither have sat in the Interview Board nor could the respondent No. 5 give any marks to his son. Viewed from this angle, the selection of the respondent No. 6 cannot be sustain ed, when he too has allotted marks to his son as candidate. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel, has also pointed out that even if the marks , given by the respondent No. 5, in favour of the respondent No. 6, are kept exc luded, respondent No. 6 would still secure higher marks. In this regard, it need s to be pointed out that the selection process has to be fair and transparent. I n the circumstances, where the father of the respondent No. 6 was one of the int erviewers, there can be no guarantee of the fairness of the selection process. H ence, on the basis of the marks, given by the members of the Selection Board oth er than the respondent No. 5, no selection can be made. Thus, viewed from any an gle, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 cannot be sustained and m ust, therefore, be set aside. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the selection of the respon dent No. 6, as a teacher, is hereby set aside and quashed and, in consequence th ereof, the extension of service of the respondent No. 6 by the impugned letter, dated 30-06-2011, is also hereby set aside and quashed. The State respondents are hereby directed to hold selection afresh withi n a period of one month from today and do the needful in accordance with law. Th e petitioner may furnish, to the respondent No. 5, namely, Sri Amzad Hussain, Pr incipal, Janapriya Higher Secondary School, Ghububar, Barpeta, a copy of this or der along with copy of the writ petition and annexure thereto.