Bhaben Konwar and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/10

¶2

GAHC010049222026

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3533

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1432/2026

¶6

BHABEN KONWAR AND ORS C/O- DURGESWAR KONWAR. VILL- MADHUPUR. PO- JAGI BHAKATGAON. PS- JAGIROAD. DIST- MORIGAON. PIN- 782411

¶7

2: BEAUTY DEVI C/O. LATE MANIK SARMA VILL- MOLIA GAON P.O- DHEKIAL DISTGOLAGHAT PIN-785622

¶8

3: DEEPIKA BHOWMICK C/O . DULAL BHOWMICK. ADDRESS- THANA ROAD KARIMGANJ. DIST- KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI)

¶9

4: ARUNDHATI GOSWAMI C/O DHANJIT CHOUDHURY. ADDRESS - PATHSALA (BAJALI) DIST - BAJALI

¶10

5: NITYA KISHORE DEY C/O- NARENDRA DEY. ADDRESS -VILL- ATANAGAR P.O-KANAI BAZAR DIST-SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) PIN-788724.

¶11

6: MOHUA CHAKRABORTY C/O- MRINMOY CHAKRABORTY. ADDRESS- NILMONI ROAD KARIMGANJ. DIST - KARIMGANJ (SRIBHUMI)

¶12

Page No.# 2/10

¶13

7: JULI MUDOI C/O-DULEN BAISHYA. ADDRESS-VILL-PHUKAN KHAT P.O-SINGIA. P.S- SAMAGURI. DIST-NAGAON. PIN-782140

¶14

8: MRIDULA SINHA VILL GOKILA. P.O. TINOKHAL . P.S. - PATHARKANDI DIST. - SHRIBHUMI PIN- 788724

¶15

9: MADHABI SINHA VILL- BAITAKHAL. PO- KATABARI. PIN- 788726. DIST.- SHRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ)

¶16

10: CHANDRAMA DUARAH C/0. - NABA KUMAR DUARAH. VILL- KAKATI BARI. P. S- KAKATI BARI. PIN-785691

¶17

11: MUNMI BORUAH D/O - PRODIP BORUAH . VILL- NO MATI NAWHALIA NAZIRA . P.O- NO MATI. P.S- NAZIRA PIN-785685 DIST-SIVASAGAR

¶18

12: CHIRAJUL ISLAM S/O- ELIUS ALI. VILLAGE- KARATIPAM. PO -KARATIPAM. P.S- MORIGAON. DIST- MORIGAON PIN-782105

¶19

13: MANISHA TALUKDAR C/O- NABAJYOTI DAS. VILL _-BAHARI. DIST - BARPETA . PO _ BAHARI HAT.

¶20

Page No.# 3/10

¶21

PIN _ 781302 14: ATIKUL ALOM S/O- SAHADAT HUSSAIN. VILL-KHATANIAPARA . PO AND PS -DHULA . DIST-DARRANG PIN- 784146 15: BHASWATI SARMA C/O- SATYENDRA NATH SARMA . ADDRESS - BISHNUPUR KHAT WARD NO-12 NALBARI TOWN P.O - NALBARI P.S- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335 16: RUPABATI SUTRADHAR C/O- DHARMESWAR SUTRADHAR. VILL- DORAPARA CHOWKAPARA. PO- AGIA. DIST- GOALPARA. PIN- 783120

¶22

17: KABERI KAKATI C/O- JITEN KAKATI. VILL- MISSAMARI. PO- HELEM. DIST- BISWANATH PIN- 784170 18: KRISHNA CHAUHAN C/O-BASUDEO CHAUHAN VILL-WATIZOR. P.O-WATIZOR. P.S-KHERONI. DIST-WEST KARBI ANGLONG. ASSAM. PIN-782446

¶23

19: FARIDA KHATUN W/O-ABDUL BATEN. VILL-CHELABARI. P/O-AMBARI.

¶24

Page No.# 4/10

¶25

P/S- DHUPDHARA. DIST- GOALPARA. ASSAM. PIN-78312

¶26

VERSUS

¶27

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION, ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI -781006.

¶28

2:THE SAMAGRA SHIKSHA AXOM REPRESENTED BY THE MISSION DIRECTOR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 78101

¶29

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M MAHANTA, N. BEGUM,MR K K MAHANTA (Sr. Advocate),MR S GAUTAM

¶30

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SSA

¶31

BEFORE

¶32

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶33

ORDER

¶34

10/03/2026

¶35

Heard Mr. K K Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K M Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents SSA.

¶36

2. As consented to by the learned counsels for the parties, the present writ petition was taken up for final consideration and is being disposed of vide the present order.

¶37

3. The petitioners in the present writ petition are CTET qualified candidates. The CTET candidates being held to be not eligible to apply for the posts advertised by the Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission, Assam on contractual basis vide advertisement dated 24.09.2020, the petitioners and persons similarly situated had approached this Court by way of filing writ

¶38

Page No.# 5/10

¶39

petition. The said writ petition filed by the petitioners on consideration came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶40

At the relevant point of time along with the advertisement issued by the Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan for recruitment of Assistant Teachers on contractual basis in various Lower Primary as well as Upper Primary Schools, recruitment process was also instituted by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for various posts of Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary as well as Upper Primary Schools. The candidates, having CTET qualification, who were desirous to apply against the posts advertised by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and being prevented from doing so, had also instituted writ petitions before this Court, which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition filed by them, a writ appeal, being WA No. 24/2021, came to be instituted by them.

¶41

The said writ appeal was given a final consideration by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.02.2021, inter-alia, directing the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the CTET candidates against 916 vacancies, out of the vacant posts as advertised in the matter, subject to they fulfilling the requisite criterias. The said order was modified vide an order dated 12.02.2021 passed in Interlocutory Application, being I.A. (Civil) No. 258/2021. In the meanwhile, an appeal was also instituted by the candidates, who were desirous of applying against the advertisement dated 24.09.2020 issued by the SSA authorities and the same was registered as WA No. 69/2021.

¶42

The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2021 disposed of the said writ appeal on the same terms and conditions as stipulated by the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 03.02.2021 passed in WA No. 24/2021.

¶43

The decision of the Division Bench rendered in WA No. 24/2021 as well as the order passed in the Interlocutory Application, being I.A. (Civil) No. 258/2021 was assailed by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 on consideration of the issues arising therein, was pleased to dismiss the special leave petition so filed.

¶44

The petitioners, who were contenders for the posts advertised vide advertisement

¶45

Page No.# 6/10

¶46

dated 24.09.2020 had again instituted WP(C) No. 6331/2022, being aggrieved by a notice dated 19.07.2022 issued by the SSA authorities, notifying the vacancies available for recruitment, out the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dated 24.09.2020. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 with the following directions:

¶47

“14. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is satisfied to hold that the petitioners have succeeded in making out a case for interference of this Court. The respondent authorities have no discretion to disobey the mandate of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 24/2021 and the judgment and order dated 19.07.2021, passed in WA No. 69/2021. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by granting similar relief to petitioners of this writ petition, which was granted to the petitioners of WP(C) No. 7600/2022, vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2023.

¶48

Subject to fulfillment of all other conditions regarding their suitability, the petitioners, who are CTET qualified and who have applied for in both online and offline mode, the respondent No.4 shall offer appointment to the petitioners as per mandate of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 24/2021 and the judgment and order dated 19.07.2021, passed in WA No. 69/2021. The respondent authority shall carry out the process of de-reservation, if post for candidates in general category or any other category is not available. And if such process is not viable then the respondent authorities shall offer appointments to the petitioners as per their position in the select list as provided in paragraph No. 20 of the order dated 08.08.2023 in WP(C) No. 7600/2022.”

¶49

The SSA authorities, thereafter, issued a notice dated 14.10.2025, requiring the CTET qualified candidates, who were writ petitioners before this Court and who were shortlisted for document verification to attend the office of the Mission Director, Samagra Siksha, Assam for verification of their documents and certificates. A list of 342 candidates, who had the CTET qualification, were shortlisted for the purpose. In pursuance to the said notice dated

¶50

Page No.# 7/10

¶51

14.10.2025, the documents and certificates of the CTET qualified candidates, who were shortlisted, were verified by the SSA authorities.

¶52

Thereafter, the SSA authorities issued a notice dated 06.03.2026 requiring candidates, whose names appeared in the select list as notified in the official website of Samagra Siksha, Axom for the posts of Assistant Teacher (Contractual) in Lower Primary Schools and Assistant Teacher (Contractual-Social Science and Maths & Science) in Upper primary Schools, to appear before the authority for document verification on the date and venue specified therein. In the said notice, it was stipulated that the selected CTET candidates, however, are not required to go though the verification process. The said verification process vide the said Notification dated 06.03.2026 was restricted to the selected Assam TET qualified candidates, whose names appeared in the select list and who are interested to join as Contractual Assistant Teachers. In the said Notification, it was further stipulated that after completion of the verification process of documents/certificates, appointment letters would be issued to the selected candidates.

¶53

The Assam TET candidates, being brought into the fray, the petitioners being apprehensive that their prospect of selection would be diminished and further that the orders passed by the Division Bench as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would not be complied with, have instituted the present writ petition.

¶54

4. Mr. K K Mahanta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the directions passed by the Division Bench as well as by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 6331/2022, it is the shortlisted CTET qualified candidates, who have to be given primacy in the matter of appointment. He submits that the Notification dated 06.03.2026 has the effect of denying appointment to the petitioners, as well as violating the procedure laid down by the Division Bench as well as by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 6331/2022 prescribing the manner in which the available vacancies, out of the vacant posts advertised vide advertisement dated 24.09.2020 would be filled up. He submits that the CTET candidates are to be appointed in terms of their merit position after carrying out a process of de-reservation and in the event, posts for General category

¶55

Page No.# 8/10

¶56

candidates is not available and de-reservation is not permissible, the SSA authorities be required to effect appointments in respect of the CTET candidates by reckoning their merit position in the select list and by replacing, therein, the Assam TET candidates lower in merit than the CTET candidates.

¶57

4.1 Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities with a view to overreach the directions passed by the Division Bench as well as by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, noticed hereinabove, have proceeded to issue the Notification dated 06.03.2026 bringing into the fray the Assam TET qualified candidates and accordingly, prays that the Notification dated 06.03.2026 be set aside to the extent that it extends a consideration even to the Assam TET qualified candidates, who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24.09.2020. Mr. Mahanta, further prays that the vacancies now available, be so considered for recruitment of the candidates in the fray having CTET qualification, including the petitioners.

¶58

5. Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents SSA, at the outset, has submitted that basing on the applications received from CTET qualified candidates, 149 posts belonging to the reserved category were de-reserved and denoted as unreserved posts for accommodating CTET candidates. He submits that the left out Assam TET qualified candidates, considering the fact that vacancies are available, have also been brought into the fray and their cases would also now be considered on merits. He submits that the apprehension raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is clearly misplaced.

¶59

5.1 In support of his submissions, Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents SSA has referred to paragraph 8.1 of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 6331/2022, wherein, it was mandated that the consideration required to be extended in respect of the vacancies available would also be mandated to be extended to all eligible candidates, including the Assam TET qualified candidates, who had already applied in terms of the advertisement dated 24.09.2020 by reckoning their respective merits. He submits that the de-reservation having already occasioned in the matter and posts identified for unreserved category, the same would be so

¶60

Page No.# 9/10

¶61

filled up on the basis of the merit of the candidates.

¶62

6. The above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered by this Court. This Court finds that the procedure required to be followed in the matter has already been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision in WA No. 69/2021, wherein, in respect of the candidates desirous for recruitment against the vacancies advertised by the SSA authorities vide the advertisement dated 24.09.2020, the Division Bench had held that its decision rendered vide judgment and order dated 03.02.2021 in WA No. 24/2021 would stand attracted. The said position along with the developments taking place, thereafter, was again considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 6331/2022 and the directions passed therein, has already been noticed, hereinabove.

¶63

7. The decision as rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 6331/2022 in absence of a challenge thereto, has already attained its finality. Accordingly, the directions passed therein in paragraphs-14 and 15, already quoted, hereinabove, continues to hold the field and the respondent authorities, while proceeding to fill up the remaining vacant posts out of the posts so advertised, vide the advertisement dated 24.09.2020, cannot deviate, therefrom, and would be required to comply with the same.

¶64

8. The issue having already been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court as well as reiterated in the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 6331/2022, this Court directs that the SSA authorities while effecting recruitments in pursuance to the Notice dated 14.10.2025 and the Notification dated 06.03.2026, shall strictly comply with the said directions and the consideration of the cases of the CTET candidates, in the fray, including the petitioners, herein, shall be so considered for appointment against the vacant posts available, strictly in accordance with the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 69/2021 as well as the directions passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 6331/2022.

¶65

9. In the event any of the CTET qualified candidates, in the fray, is aggrieved by his/her exclusion from the selection process and is not offered with an appointment against the

¶66

Page No.# 10/10

¶67

vacant posts now under consideration, he/she would be at liberty to approach the SSA authorities, requesting for disclosure of reason for his/her exclusion from the selection process. The SSA authorities, on receipt of such application/applications, shall within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of such application issue written communication to the concerned candidate, intimating the candidate about the reason for his/her exclusion from the selection process. The CTET candidates would also be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before this Court with regard to his/her exclusion from the selection process.

¶68

10. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

Comparing Assistant

Bhaben Konwar and Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaben Konwar and Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Satya Bhuyan Vs Sri Pritam Saikia

Smti Aruna Chutia Vs Sri Pritam Saikia

All Assam Retired Officers Teachers and Employees Committee Vs Shri Jayanta Narlikar, IAS

Masum Ahmed Choudhury Vs Suranjana Senapati and 2 Ors.

Dr. Abdul Mannan Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kanak Ch. Kuli Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.