WP(C) 6383/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B D AGARWAL The petitioners before us are the candidates empanelled in the select list drawn up for filling up the posts of Post Graduate teachers in the Provincialised Hig her Secondary Schools of the State on the culmination of the process of selectio n initiated by the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 issued by the Director of Sec ondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara. They presently seek to challenge the incor poration of clause (vi) in part ’B’ to Schedule III of the Assam Secondary Educ ation (Provincialised) Service (Amendment) Rules, 1997, thereby amending the Ass am Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter for sho rt referred to as ’Rules’). 2. We have heard Mr. D.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V M Thomas, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents . 3. For the order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it neces sary to issue formal notice. The litigation has a chequered history. In respon se to the advertisement aforementioned under the Rules then in force, the petit ioners had offered their candidature and according to them, in the select list that was published, their names were enlisted as aforementioned. The process wa s conducted in accordance with the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) S ervice Rules, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2003) that had been framed in the interregnum, repealing the Rules. The selection was impugne d in W.P(C)No.8319/03, W.P(C)No.7933/03. This court allowed the challenge vide judgment and order dated 4.1.2005 and directed that the selection be conducted in accordance with the Rules. 4. Claiming that the aforementioned process had been completed in t erms of the Rules, 2003 the petitioners approached this court with W.P(C)No.908/ 07 and W.P(C)No.1975 of 2007 seeking appointment and by judgment and order date d 31.7.2007, the petitions were dismissed. Whereas, the petitioners being aggri eved instituted W.A.No.358/07 and W.A.389/07, the private respondents in W.P(C) No.8319 of 2003 and 7933 of 2003, being dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 4 .1.2005 filed W.A.No.238 of 2005. 5. The issue before the Division Bench was as to whether the select ion process ought to have been conducted in terms of the Rules or Rules, 2003. B y judgment and order dated 11.12.2008, Division Bench of this court disposed of the aforementioned appeals directing the official respondents to conduct the rec ruitment process in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the Rule s by allowing only those candidates who had responded to the advertisement withi n the stipulated time and had satisfied all other conditions of eligibility in t erms thereof. As the aforementioned judgment sought to negate the pleas of the petitioners who claimed to have been selected in the process conducted in accord ance with the Rules 2003, they took the matter before the Apex court in the form of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s)6047-6049/2009, which was dismissed on 17.7.2009. In the above premise the judgment rendered in W.P(C)No.7933/03, W.P(C )No.8319/03, W.P(C)No. 908/07 and W.P(C)No.1975/07 and in the aforementioned app eals attained finality. In other words, the stage was set for proceeding with t he selection process in accordance with the Rules. 6. The petitioners have now turned to challenge the aforementioned clause of the Rules, which has since been incorporated by the amendment thereto introduced in the year 1997. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel has urged that having regard to the mar ks prescribed for assessment of the candidates for selection of Post Graduate Te achers, 85 marks for possessing B.Ed or M.Ed degree is disproportionately high a nd as the same has the potential of introducing arbitrariness and lack of object ivity and transparency in the selection process , it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be adjudged unconstitutional and n ull and void. According to him, though the petitioners are not possessed the abo ve degree(s) they ought to be granted a fair chance in competing with the others and that if the weightage given to B.Ed or M.Ed is retained as in the impugned clause they would not stand any chance and their participation would be reduc ed to a formality. 8. Mr.V.M. Thamas, learned standing counsel for the respondents has urged that 85 marks out of 700 towards the aforementioned weightage per se cann ot be said to be disproportionately high. As the academic excellence is the dec isive factor for the post involved, the challenge is wholly mis-conceived and i s liable to be rejected in limine, be pleaded. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the materials on record, we are inclined to sustain the plea raised o n behalf of the official respondents. That the selection is for the post of Post Graduate Teachers wherein teaching skills is of paramout relevance and signifi cance is not in doubt. Having regard to the fact that the scheme of 700 marks is comprised of 8 segments with 150 marks for interview, we do not feel convinced that credit marks of 85 for B.Ed or M.Ed is so disproportionate to warrant in terference with the assailed clause as arbitrary and unconstitutional. Noticeab ly, the apex Court had dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s)6047-6 049/2009 on 17.7.2009. The aforementioned criterion had been introduced into Ru les by the 1997 amendment. It is thus logical to infer that their Lordships whil e dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal were aware of the same and permitted the official respondents to conduct the exercise in accordance with Rules as ame nded. Implicitly, therefore the validity of clause (vi) of Part B of Schedule I II to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialsed) Service (Amendment) Rules, 1977 was countenanced by the Apex Court. 10. On a totality of the considerations as above, we are o f the unhesitant opinion that the challenge does not merit of acceptance. The petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.