Allowed

Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Nov 2021WP(C)/7070/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of a principal's selection process. The court rejected the allegation that the petitioner's degree was fake and held that the inquiry report was unreliable as it ignored individual signed marks sheets. The court set aside the re-advertisement and directed authorities to complete the selection.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the abandonment of the selection process and directed the Director of Secondary Education to complete the selection from the current stage and forward the panel to the State Selection Board

Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass Vs the State of Assam and 2… — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010148492017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7070/2017

¶5

RASHMI DUTTA ROY DASS

¶6

I/C PRINCIPAL, TINSUKIA BENGALI GIRLS H S SCHOOL, P.O AND DISTTINSUKIA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION SECONDARYDEPARTMENT CUM CHAIRMAN STATE SELECTION COMMITTEE, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶11

ASSAM CUM MEMEBER SECRETARY STATE SELECTION COMMITTEE ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19

¶12

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS TINSUKIA DISTRICT CIRCLE TINSUKI

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K DAS

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SECONDARY EDUCATION

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Date : 11-11-2021

¶19

Heard Mr. S K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents no, 1, 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam.

¶20

The petitioner who is also an In-Charge Principal of the Tinsukia Bengali Girls’ Higher Secondary School and also being a subject teacher of english had participated in a selection process for being appointed as a regular Principal of the school pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.06.2016 by the Member Secretary of the School Selection Committee.

¶21

From the perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition and the other affidavits, it transpires that three candidates had offered their candidature in the selection process namely the petitioner Rashmi Dutta Roy (Dass), Minakshi Bhattacharjee (Sen) and Sobita Devi Borthakur. Admittedly, the procedure provided under Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincalised) Service Rules, 2003 (in short, the Rules of 2003) had been followed in the selection process.

¶22

As required under Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 2003 the School Selection Committee received applications and as required Rule 13(2) the applications were scrutinized and the interview was held and thereafter, as required under Rule 13(3), the School Selection Committee had prepared a panel list of the candidates. Further, the records reveal that the panel list of the three candidates prepared by the School Selection Committee was forwarded to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for being placed before the State Selection Board as required under Rule 13(4).

¶23

From the affidavit of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, it appears that at that stage there was a complaint by one of the candidates namely Sobita Devi Borthakur raising an allegation that the Post Graduate degree of the petitioner Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass was not a genuine degree.

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

In the circumstance, the Director had caused an enquiry through the Joint Director namely Dr. Bhupen Talukdar and the Joint Director, Dr. Bhupen Talukdar had submitted an enquiry report that out of the four members of the School Selection Committee, only two of the members had signed the Statement of Marks and therefore, the procedure adopted was vitiated. In the circumstance, there was a decision to go for a re-advertisement and abandon the selection process. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid circumstance, this writ petition is instituted by the petitioner that as the selection process that was initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.06.2016 was made strictly in accordance with the rules and procedure and therefore, a direction be issued that the process itself to be brought to its logical end.

¶26

Apparently, from the affidavit of the Director of Secondary Education, two issues were of concern for the authorities in not carrying forward the selection process to its logical end.

¶27

The first concern was regarding the genuinity of the Post Graduate degree of the petitioner Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass.

¶28

We have perused the certificate of the petitioner Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass as regard her Post Graduate degree, which is annexed as Annexure-1, page-15 to the writ petition. A perusal of the certificate reveals that the petitioner had obtained her Master of Arts degree in the subject English in December, 1993 from the Osmania University. The Osmania Univerisyt is said to be an university which is duly recognized by the UGC. It is also one of the reputed universities of the country. There is no allegation that the degree was obtained through the off campus method and it is stated that the petitioner was a regular student of the university and had obtained her degree of Master of Arts in English as a regular student.

¶29

In the absence of any further material, it cannot be concluded that the Master of Arts degree of the petitioner in the subject English from the Osmania University would have to be construed to be not a genuine degree in any manner. Consequently, the question that was before the Director regarding the genuinity of the Master of Arts degree of the petitioner has to be answered in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

The other concern is that the Statement of Marks had been signed by only two of the members of the selection committee. We have taken note of that the petitioner in the

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

meantime had obtained the Statement of Marks made by the selection committee through the Right to Information Act and the same is annexed from pages-9 to 13 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 23.01.2019.

¶33

A reading of the Statement of Marks shows that the four member of the selection committee had their individual sheets for providing the marks and the four of the individual sheets had been duly signed by the four members and all the signatures bears the date of 09.12.2016 but later, on the same date, the marks provided by the four members were cumulated and the cumulated statement of marks bore only the signature of two of the members of the selection committee i.e. the Chairman and the Member Secretary.

¶34

It appears that the Joint Director had taken note of only the cumulated Statement of Marks while at the same time ignoring the individual sheets which were duly signed by the four members of the selection committee.

¶35

From the said point of view, even the enquiry report of the Joint Director does not inspire any confidence to arrive at a conclusion that the appropriate procedure of law was not followed in the selection process. As the selection process was abandoned on reasons not supported by records, we are of view that the act on the part of the respondents in abandoning and not carrying any further and at the same time deciding to go for a readvertisement would not be sustainable in law.

¶36

As the selection process was not carried forward for reasons which cannot be supported under the law, we set aside the act on the part of the respondent authorities in abandoning the selection process and not carrying it further. Accordingly, we direct the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to take further steps to take forward the selection process from the stage of the Statements of Marks being prepared by the School Selection Committee and signed by all the four members of the selection committee and thereafter, bring it to its logical end meaning thereby that the Statements of Marks be accordingly acted upon and the panel list of the three candidates which are discernable from such Statements of Marks be forwarded to the Director for being placed before the State Selection Board and the State Selection Board may take their appropriate decision based on the materials on record and prepare a select list as required under Rule 13(4) of the Rules of 2003. Upon the select list

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

being prepared, the same be placed before the Government for approval and if the Government approves the same, the subsequent needful be done.

¶39

The requirement of placing the four Statements of Marks prepared by the School Selection Committee before the State Selection Board be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by the Director and thereafter do the needful.

¶40

Writ petition stands allowed in above terms.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi Dutta Roy Dass v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sailendra Nath Takoe and 137 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Biplab Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Anju Rani Baishya Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Baharul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti. Velentina Ahmed Vs the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mrigen Borboruah and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.