WP(C) 6811/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N.C. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. R. Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the notice dated 9.12.2010 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam cum Member Secret ary, State Selection Board, bringing to the notice of all concerned that all the eligible persons applied for selection to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress /Assistant Head Master/Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent of the provincial ised High/High Madrassa Schools, should appear for an interview on the date fixe d for that purpose. The grounds of challenge to the said notice is that as the petitioner is dischar ging his duties as Head Master in-charge for a long period of time, he cannot be deprived from appearing in the process of selection initiated pursuant to the a dvertisement dated 2.11.2010, in response to which he has filed his application for selection. According to the petitioner, though he does not have the required B. Ed/BT degree, by virtue of long experience, he ought to have been allowed to appear in the selection process, which has not been done. Rule 14(4) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rul es, 2003 provides the eligibility criteria of the post of Head Master/ Head Mist ress/Assistant Head Master/Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent of the provin cialised High/High Madrassa provincialised Schools. It provides that the minimum qualification for the said post shall be graduate in Arts/Science/Commerce with B.Ed/BT degree and the candidate must possess at-least 10(ten) years of teachin g experience as graduate teacher. For the post of Assistant Head Master/Assistan t Head Mistress/Assistant Superintendent, the requirement is 7(seven) years teac hing experience as graduate teacher. The petitioner, admittedly though is a graduate but he does not have the qualification of B.Ed/BT degree. By the impugned notice dated 9.12.2010, the Director has asked the perso ns, who are qualified, to appear in the interview, date for which have also been mentioned in the said notice. Since the petitioner does not have the required q ualification as stipulated in Rule 14(4) of the 2003 Rules, he cannot claim that he should be allowed to appear in the selection, unless relaxation has been giv en by the authority, in exercise of power conferred by Rule 30 of the 2003 Rules . The petitioner is yet to apply for relaxation under Rule 30 of the said rules. That being the position, the prayer made in the present petition, in so far as it relates to the challenge to the impugned notice dated 9.12.2010, canno t be granted. However, it would not preclude the petitioner from applying to the appropriate authority for relaxation of the rules under Rule 30 of the 2003 Rul es and in the event any such application is filed and provided the authority has the power to relax the requisite educational qualification, the authority shall consider the same and pass necessary orders. In the event of the approach by the petitioner, the respondent authority shall decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible, so that in case relaxati on is granted, the petitioner is not deprived from appearing in the selection pr ocess. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.