WP(C) 5384/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A K GOSWAMI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. HK Barman , learned Govt. Advocate who appears for the respondent No.2. Mr. PN Goswami, le arned Standing Counsel, Education Department, is also heard for and on behalf of the respondents No.1. None has entered appearance for the respondents No. 3 to 8. 2. The pleaded case of the writ petitioner is that the Govt. of Assam had introduced a scheme to strengthen and improve the quality of Secondary Education in the State of Assam which envisages engagement of additional teachers on cont ractual basis in the subjects of English, Social Science and Mathematics, etc. a t a monthly remuneration of ‘ 8,000/- for a period of 11 months. An advertisemen t dated 1.7.2010 was published inviting applications from interested candidates for engagement as additional teachers in the subjects of English, Mathematics a nd Social Science in Dhalpur Higher Secondary School in the district of Lakhimpu r. The advertisement, according to the petitioner, was issued in consonance with the Scheme mentioned herein above. Further pleaded case of the writ petitioner is that he alongwith some others had responded to the aforesaid advertisement and the selection committee which was constituted, interviewed the candidates o n 22.7.2010. According to the writ petitioner, he was placed at Sl. No.1 by the selection committee for being appointed as contractual teacher in the subject of Social Science. The comparative statement as well as other documents pertaining to the selection process was forwarded to the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 28.7.2010. The respondent No.2, thereafter, issued the i mpugned order dated 15.9.2010, which in effect, did not approve the selection he ld on the basis of the interview conducted on 22.7.2010 and further, by the said order dated 15.9.2010, the interview was directed to be held afresh in respect of certain schools including the school for which the petitioner had applied. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by the respondent No.2 st ating that the impugned order dated 15.9.2010 came to be passed on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the Principal of the school and on the basis of an enquiry conducted through the Circle Officer, Narayanpur Revenue Circle. 4. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the De puty Commissioner had exercised power arbitrarily and without considering the ma terials on record. It is his contention that the enquiry report, purportedly on the basis of which the order dated 15.9.2010 was passed, does not indicate that there was any irregularity or illegality in the process of selection conducted and, on the contrary, the said report has indirectly indicted the complainant, n amely, the Principal of the school. He has submitted that the order dated 15.9. 2010 clearly demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the respondent No.2 inasmuch as he has not at all recorded his satisfaction or otherwise, on the report of the Circle Officer. He contends that the petitioner had been selec ted by the duly constituted Selection Committee, and a right accrues to him for being appointed and such legitimate right and claim of the petitioner cannot be frustrated by mere ipse-dixit on the part of the respondent No.2. In the aforesa id premises, the learned counsel urges that the writ petition deserves to be al lowed by setting aside the order dated 15.9.2010 issued by the respondent No.2 a nd further directing the respondent No.2 to issue a letter of engagement on the basis of merit list pursuant to the interview held on 22.7.2010. 5. Mr. HK Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, re-iterating the stand tak en in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent No.2, has tried to im press upon this court that on the face of the allegation as would be evident fr om the complaint filed by the Principal, the course of action adopted by the D eputy Commissioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. It is contended by him that such a course of action was adopted by the Deputy Commissioner to ensure fair selection of the candidates. Referring to the report of the Circle Officer, the learned counsel submits that though the Circle Officer had opined that it was the duty of the Principal to keep the records in her safe custody an d should not have allowed anybody else to take away the papers relating to selec tion process, having regard to the complaint lodged by the Principal which was t o the effect that though she was coerced to act in a manner as desired by the Pr esident of the Managing Committee, she could not muster enough courage to voice her protest at the time when selection process was continuing, such statements o f the Principal cannot simply be wished away. Learned counsel has also pointed o ut that the gross disparity in the allotment of marks to different candidates in the interview segment, which carries a total of 70 marks, vis-à-vis marks allo tted to the writ petitioner, bears out the allegations of the Principal. 6. Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, submits that under the provision of the scheme, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to cause enquiry. However, according to him, judging by the report of the Circle Officer, fresh interview as directed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order da ted 15.9.10, may not be called for. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 15.9.2010 would go to show that the re was complaint in respect of engagement of contractual employees in respect o f 10 schools as enumerated therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the v ery outset, has indicated that in all the other 9 schools, pursuant to the order dated 15.9.2010, fresh interview, as directed, was taken by the interview Board as constituted by the said order. It is further submitted by the learned counse l for the petitioner that pursuant to the second interview, that had taken place , selection had been made and engagement orders had also been issued. Even in th e Dhalpur High School, apart from the subject of Social Science in which the pre sent petitioner is interested, in the subjects of Mathematics and English, fresh interview had taken place and selection list was prepared. 8. The Scheme visualizes that the Selection Committee would be constituted by the school Managing Committee for the purpose of selecting the candidates. Th e Deputy Commissioner or his representative is to be the Chairman of the Committ ee and the School Head is to be the Member Secretary. The president of the Schoo l Managing Committee would be one of the members along with one subject expert w ho is to be nominated by the Inspector of Schools to be approved by the Deputy C ommissioner of the District. The selection of the candidates are to be made stri ctly on the basis of merit and Clause 13 of the Scheme provides the guidelines for Selection Committee in assessing the merit of the candidates. For the examin ations beginning from HSLC to BA/B.Sc, (three in total) 100 marks for each exam ination has been assigned. For B.Ed/M.Ed, 30 marks have been earmarked and 20 bo nus marks are to be allotted to candidates who have got Honours in the concerned subject. In the interview segment, 70 marks, as noted earlier, has been earmark ed. Thus, the selection is on the basis of total 400 marks. Clause 14 of the Sch eme requires the Selection Committee to forward the selection list to the Deputy Commissioner of the District for his approval and the Deputy Commissioner is em powered, before according approval, to make such enquiry as he considers necessa ry. 9. The complaint which was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner by the Principal of the School is dated 2.8.2010, i.e. 10 days after holding of the int erview on 22.7.2010. In the said complaint, the Principal acknowledged that she was helpless at the time when selection list was prepared in view of the hostile posture adopted by the President of the Managing Committee, who had threatened that he would stall all the development activities of the school in case she did not act as per his direction. Allegation was also levelled that the President o f the Managing Committee had manipulated the interview mark sheets and that he h ad prepared the selection list as per his wish depriving meritorious candidates. The report of the Circle Officer proceeded on the assumption that the Member Se cretary, i.e, the Principal is the custodian of all the related documents and it was her duty to keep and maintain the confidentiality of such documents. The Ci rcle Officer had also considered the average marks given by the Members of the S election Committee including the marks given by the Principal to the petitioner, thereby coming to the conclusion that the allegation that the President of the Managing Committee, had sought to deprive meritorious candidates, do not find s upport. The report of the Circle Officer was, however, conspicuously silent with regard to the marks allotted to other candidates in the interview. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner may be justified in saying that t he order dated 15.9.2010 does not elaborately assign the reasons as to why such fresh interview was directed to be conducted. Though the Circle Officer in his r eport had considered the marks allotted by the various members in respect of the petitioner, having regard to the nature of proceeding, this court refrains from giving any comment with regard to the aforesaid as also on the contention of M r. Barman that the wide range of variation in the marks allotted to the candidat es in the interview itself justifies a fresh interview. Having regard to the mat erials on record, the conclusion emanating from the order dated 15.9.2010 cann ot be said to be totally unjustified or wholly unreasonable. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the su bmission of Mr. Sinha and, therefore, this writ application is dismissed. 12. Bearing in mind that the period of engagement is contractual in nature a nd, that too, for a limited period of 11 months, the Member Secretary will take such steps as is required under the law and in terms of the order dated 15.9.201 0 at an early date. The discussion aforesaid though amply demonstrates that the court has not discussed about the comparative merit of the candidates, it is onc e again clarified that the Selection Committee would be free to consider and ass ess the relative merits of the candidates as and when such candidates offer thei r candidature pursuant to the interview that is to take place after issuance of the advertisement. The petitioner, if desirous of, can certainly take part in th e proceedings.