Dismissed¶69

Arif MD Yeamin Chowdhury and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 Oct 2025WP(C)/3870/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; Assam; rules of the game changed midway; recruitment process commencement; advertisement vs addendum; teacher recruitment eligibility criteria; Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules 2018 amendment August 2024; Mathematics Teacher Honours/post-graduation requirement; proviso to Article 309 Constitution; Article 14 non-arbitrariness; Tej Prakash Pathak (2025) 2 SCC 1; K. Majusree (2008) 3 SCC 512; WP(C)/3870/2025; WP(C)/2353/2025; writ petitions dismissed 16.10.2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The recruitment process commenced with the issuance of the addendum to the December 2023 advertisement, not with the advertisement itself; consequently, the amended Rules of 2024 are treated as the extant Rules governing this recruitment. ¶65

Arif MD Yeamin Chowdhury and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the amendment to the Rules of 2018 and the consequent addendum altering the eligibility criteria for the post of Mathematics Teacher amounted to an impermissible change of the rules of the game midway, given the original advertisement dated 27.12.2023 issued under the unamended Rules. +1 more

¶53

Court's answer

¶65

Ratio / Principle

Requiring candidates for the post of Mathematics Teacher, via the 16.10.2024 addendum, to hold Honours or a Post-Graduate degree in Mathematics cannot be said to be a change of the rules of the game midway.

¶64

Key takeaways

Following the clarification in Tej Prakash Pathak relied upon by this Court, any alteration of eligibility criteria after commencement of the recruitment process — even if permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement — must meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.ratio¶62
The changes brought in by the amendment to the Rules of 2018 appear to be based on rational thinking — specialised qualification enables a teacher to impart education in the subject of specialisation in a better way — and fixing of eligibility criteria is in the domain of the government, ordinarily taken after due consultation with expert bodies; no good ground was raised to question the correctness of the amendment.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ, authoring; Arun Dev Choudhury, J), 16.10.2025 — writ petitions WP(C)/3870/2025 (Arif Md Yeamin Chowdhury & 7 Ors.) and linked WP(C)/2353/2025 (Abdus Salam Mazarbhuiya & Ors.) DISMISSED. The petitions challenged the August 2024 amendment to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018, made by virtue of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, requiring a Graduate Teacher in Mathematics to hold a Science graduation with Honours/Major in Mathematics (with Physics, Chemistry or Biology as Pass Course or minor subject) or a post-graduation degree in Mathematics, with at least 50% marks in graduation or post-graduation. The 27.12.2023 advertisement had stipulated only graduation with prescribed marks plus B.Ed., leaving subject-wise/district-wise vacancies and application dates 'to be notified later', so no applications were entertained; the 16.10.2024 addendum supplied those details and imposed the Mathematics-specialisation requirement. Relying on Tej Prakash Pathak (2025) 2 SCC 1 (which ratified K. Majusree (2008) 3 SCC 512), the Court held that the recruitment process began with the addendum — issued after the Rules were amended — that the amended Rules of 2024 are the extant Rules, and that the new eligibility criterion 'cannot be said to be change in the Rules of the game midway'; any post-commencement change, even if permitted, must satisfy Article 14 and non-arbitrariness. The amendment was found rational, eligibility-fixation lying in the government's domain. No order as to costs.

Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010131622025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3870/2025

¶6

ARIF MD YEAMIN CHOWDHURY AND 7 ORS. S/O- NEZAM UDDIN CHOWDHURY, R/O- MAJLISHPUR, P.O.MARJATKANDI, P.S.-BADARPUR, DIST.-SRIBHUMI, ASSAM-788701

¶7

2: TOSER ALI S/O- SATTAR ALI R/O-HOUSE NO.158 NAYER ALGA PT-IV BILASIPARA P.O.-NAYER ALGA P.S.-BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 783348 3: RISHICASH BORUAH S/O- BHABANANDA BORUAH R/O- VILLAGE-DAKUA DHALPUR LAKHIMPUR P.O.- DHALPUR P.S.-NARAYANPUR DIST.-LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 784165 4: NEHA KISHORE SINGH D/O- SHYAM KISHORE SINGH R/O- TARAPUR SILCHAR P.O-TARAPUR P.S.-TARAPUR DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM

¶8

Page No.# 2/10

¶9

788003

¶10

5: MADHAB CHANDRA GHOSH S/O- MOHANLAL GHOSH R/O- VILLAGE- BARJARUNI GAON P.O.-PHULTOLI BAZAR P.S.-LANKA DIST.-HOJAI ASSAM 782446 6: SANDWIPA SARKAR D/O- TAPAN KUMAR SARKAR R/O- THAKURBARI ROAD WARD NO. 3 BIJNI P.O.-BIJNI P.S.-BIJNI DIST.-CHIRANG ASSAM 783390

¶11

7: SAHEBA KHATUN D/O- ABDUL KARIM KHANDOKAR R/O-VILLAGE- HATSINGIMARI P/O- HATSINGIMARI P.S.-SOUTH SALMARA DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 783136

¶12

8: TASLIMA MAZUMDER D/O- JAINUL HAQUE MAZUMDER R/O-VILLAGE- SIBPUR PART-I P.O.-HAZARIGRAM BAZAR P.S.-LAKHIPUR DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM 78810 VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

¶14

2:THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM

Page No.# 3/10

KAHILIPARA

GUWAHATI-78101

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BHUYAN, MR N A MAZARBHUIYA,MR N Z CHOUDHURY

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.,

¶20

Linked Case : WP(C)/2353/2025

¶21

ABDUS SALAM MAZARBHUIYA AND ORS S/O-NURUL HAQUE MAZARBHUIYA R/O-VILLAGE-BHATIRKUPA PT-II P.O.BHATIRKUPA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788152

¶22

2: SANI PAUL

¶23

S/O-MOHIT PAUL R/O-VILLAGE-KANAIBAZAR P.O.-KANAIBAZAR DISTSRIBHUMI ASSAM 788724

¶24

3: BIBHU BHUSHAN KOIRI S/O-BIJOY PRASAD KOIRI R/O-NATUN BAZAR P.O.-NATUN BAZAR DIST.SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788115

¶25

4: SUBRAT JYOTI ALABYAN S/O-HEREMBA SARMAH R/O-CHOWKHAM MACHKHOWA P.O-MACHKHOWA DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM 787058

¶26

5: ABDUL BASIT BARBHUIYA S/O-IBRAHIM ALI BARBHUIYA R/O-BRAHMANGRAM P.O.-KALAIN DIST.CACHAR ASSAM 788815

¶27

6: RAJDEEP ROY

¶28

S/O-JOGESH ROY GOV MANIGHMITA DEKA GUWAHAT REGD. NO.-39484 7- R/O-VILLAGE-NALUKANDI

¶29

Page No.# 4/10

¶30

KANAIBAZAR P.O.-KANAIBAZAR DIST.-SRIBHUMI ASSAM 788724 7: TAHER AHMED LASKAR S/O-ABDUL BASITH LASKAR R/O-VILLAGE-VICHINGCHA PT-II P/OVICHINGCHA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 8: INDIRA SINGHA D/O-IBUNGOTON SINGHA R/O-BHITORGANAGAPUR PT-I P.O.-JARAILTOLA BAZAR DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM 788127 9: JAVED AHMED LASKAR S/O-AYUBUR RAHMAN LASKAR R/O-KALAIN P.O.-KALAIN DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM 788815 10: SARFARAZ SHAMIM CHOUDHURY S/O-M.R.CHOUDHURY R/O-VILLAGE-BASHDAR PT-I P.O.-MATIJURI DIST.HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 11: DWIJENDRA NATH ROY S/O-RATHINDRA NATH ROY R/O-VILLAGE-DINGDINGA P.O.-DINGDINGA DIST.-DHUBRI ASSAM 783333

¶31

12: ABU TAHIR MAZUMDER S/O-ROHIM UDDIN MAZUMDER R/O-VILLAGE-UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PT-II P/O-UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PT-II DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM 788006

¶32

13: EMAD AHMED LASKAR S/O-ABDUS SALAM LASKAR R/O-ITKHOLA P/O-SILCHAR DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM 788002

¶33

14: HIROK PAUL S/O-HIRONMOY PAUL R/O-DULIYAKHAL KARAIBARI NILAMBAZAR P.O.-DURGANAGAR DIST-SRIBHUMI ASSAM

¶34

Page No.# 5/10

¶35

788722

¶36

15: P M GULSHAN AHMED LASKAR S/O-ABDUL GAFUR LASKAR R/O-VILLAGE-KHELMA PT-VI P.O.-GUMRA BAZAR DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM 788815 VERSUS

¶37

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

¶38

2:THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ------------

¶39

For petitioner/appellant(s): Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, Advocate Mr. N. Z. Choudhury, Advocate

¶40

For respondent(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, AG, Assam Mr. N. J. Khataniar, SC, Education Ms. R. Barua, Advocate

¶41

– BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶42

16.10.2025

¶43

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶44

We have heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. N. J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam.

¶45

The petitioners have put a challenge to the amendment in the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018

¶46

Page No.# 6/10

¶47

(hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2018”), by virtue of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, whereby it has been provided that a Graduate Teacher in the subject of Mathematics shall be required to have graduation degree in Science with Honours or Major in Mathematics and having Physics, Chemistry or Biology as Pass Course, or minor subject in the graduate level course, or post-graduation degree in Mathematics from a recognised university with Honours or Major in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology as pass course, or minor subject with at least 50% marks in either graduation or post-graduation.

¶48

Prior to this amendment, an advertisement was issued on 27.12.2023 by the Department of Secondary Education, Assam, for filling up posts of teachers in Arts and Science stream and no such specific requirements were stipulated as eligibility criteria for subject-wise posts of Teacher. The only requirement stipulated was graduation with specific percentage of marks along with B. Ed. Degree. However, it was specified in the afore-noted advertisement that the subject-wise and district-wise number of posts; the date and time for filing of applications would be notified later.

¶49

Because of this clause in the afore-noted advertisement, no applications were entertained for any subject whatsoever.

¶50

As noted above, the amendment in the Rules of 2018 was effected in the month of August, 2024. Thereafter, an addendum to the afore-noted advertisement was issued on 16.10.2024 specifying the district-wise number of posts in each of the subjects, the date and time for submission of applications with specific requirement of having Honours

¶51

Page No.# 7/10

¶52

or Post-Graduate Degree in Mathematics for the post of Mathematics Teacher.

¶53

The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that once the advertisement was issued in the month of December, 2023 under the Rules of 2018, where there was no necessity of having specialised degree in Mathematics for applying for the post of Mathematics Teacher, any change made later by way of an addendum, specifically the change made in the eligibility criteria, was nothing but changing of the Rules of the game midway, which is not permissible.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the law laid down in this regard in the case of K. Majusree vs. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 , was ratified by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court to be a good law in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others (2025) 2 SCC 1 , which clarified that a recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement, calling for applications and ends up with filling up of vacancies.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the advertisement was issued in the month of December, 2023 under the old Rules, any amendment in the Rules and the consequent change made in the advertisement is perforce to be treated as the change of the rules of the game midway, especially when the eligibility criteria for applying for the post of Teacher in the subject Mathematics was changed.

¶56

Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General has expostulated that this argument is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that

¶57

Page No.# 8/10

¶58

though there was an intimation through an advertisement that certain posts of Teachers would be filled up, the advertisement itself clarified that the details with respect of the subject-wise and district-wise number of vacancies; the date and time of receipt of online applications would be notified later. The process for recruitment therefore had not begun with issuance of the advertisement in the month of December, 2023 but only with the issuance of the addendum to the advertisement. He further submits that it was only for the purpose of bringing about improvement in the system of education that the Rules of 2018 were modified making Honours course or Post-Graduate Degree in Mathematics essential for being appointed as Teacher in Mathematics, which hitherto was being appointed out of the applicants who did not have graduation or postgraduation in the subject of Mathematics but only were Science graduates. After the Rules were amended accordingly, an addendum to the earlier advertisement was issued, specifying the subject-wise and district-wise number of posts, for which applications were invited, and also intimating as to where the online applications would be accepted and also the last date of submission of applications. Thus, for all practical purposes the process of recruitment began with the issuance of the addendum which was later in point of time but after the Rules had been amended.

¶59

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶60

In Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), it has been clarified that the Rules of the game cannot be changed midway and the eligibility criteria

¶61

Page No.# 9/10

¶62

notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be altered unless the extant Rules so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

¶63

As already noted above, the earlier advertisement only mentioned the total number of posts of teachers in a broader framework, namely, Arts and Science stream, without specifying the subject-wise and medium-wise number of the posts, and no such specific requirements were stipulated as eligibility criteria for the post of teacher in the subject of Mathematics. Later, the addendum was issued specifying the districtwise and medium-wise number of posts in different subjects, including the subject of Mathematics and also intimating the last date for filing of such application.

¶64

This addendum required a candidate desirous to be appointed on the post of teacher in Mathematics to have Honours or Post-Graduate degree in the subject of Mathematics, which cannot be said to be change in the Rules of the game midway.

¶65

It has already been noted in the preceding paragraph that the amended Rules of 2024 would be treated as the extant Rules for the purpose of the recruitment process which started with the issuance of the addendum to the earlier advertisement.

¶66

No good ground also has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners for questioning the correctness of the decision to amend the Rules of 2018.

¶67

Page No.# 10/10

¶68

Accordingly, we are of the view that (i) the changes brought in by the amendment to the Rules of 2018 appear to be based on a rational thinking that specialised qualification in a particular subject would enable the teacher to impart education in the subject of his specialisation in a better way; (ii) fixing of eligibility criteria is in the domain of the government, which decision is more often than not, taken after due consultation with expert bodies and based on past experience.

¶69

Thus, we find no merit in the writ petitions and, accordingly, the same are dismissed.

¶70

No order as to costs.

¶71

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶72

Comparing Assistant

Arif MD Yeamin Chowdhury and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif MD Yeamin Chowdhury and 7 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Badri Rai and Company Vs Indian Institute of Technology

Shri Udit Gupta Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

M/S Badri Rai and Co. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

The Union of India and Anr. Vs Lalkumar Ek and 17 Ors.

Abdus Salam Mazarbhuiya and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Lakheswar Mazumdar, Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.