Chandan Ch Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School was rejected.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement in the year 1998, the petitioner had applied for the post of LDA but neither the select list was published nor he was appointed to the post of LDA in the said school and he submits that one another candidate namely Subodh Kalita was appointed to the post of LDA in the said school. The petitioner being

¶27

Page No.# 3/8

¶28

aggrieved by his non appointment had challenged by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1766/1999 and this Court vide order dated 05.04.2001 had directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the available materials. It was also observed that one post of LDA was lying vacant and the petitioner was directed to be considered for the said post as in the mean time, the other appointee i.e. Subodh Kalita was upgraded( sic) to the post of Assistant Teacher and the said exercise was directed to be considered within a time frame.

¶29

In pursuance to the said order, the Inspector of Schools, KDC ( Kamrup District Circle) by a letter to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam dated 04.10.2005 intimidated that in the selection process conducted pursuant to the advertisement in the year 1998, Subodh Kalita stood first both in the selection test as well as in the interview and as such appointment was given to him and that the petitioner could not be appointed. Further, it was intimated that after the appointment of Subodh Kalita, no appointment could be given due to ban imposed by the Government, with the further intimation that appointment of the petitioner would be considered later as per Government norm. It is seen that the said information was given by way of a letter and that there was no order in compliance by the authorities pursuant to the High Court's order dated 05.04.2001.

¶30

Being aggrieved again, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 6779/2005 and this Court vide order dated 02.01.2006 directed the authorities that they should consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and issue appropriate order and the said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months. It was further ordered that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the

¶31

Page No.# 4/8

¶32

authorities, he may approach the Court for appropriate reliefs. Pursuant to the same, in the year 2007, more specifically on 02.11.2007, a letter was written by the Inspector of Schools to the Director of Secondary Education, intimating thereby that it was not the petitioner but Subodh Kalita, who stood first in the interview pursuant to the advertisement of 1998 and he was appointed as the LDA. It was further intimated that a final select list of the candidates was found available wherein Subodh Kalita stood first and the petitioner stood second. Along with the said information, it was also intimated that there was another statement of 30 numbers of candidates showing their marks, wherein it was found that the petitioner scored the highest mark. It was also stated that the said list of 30 candidates had two signatures of the authorities where as in the so called final list of three candidates, there were no signatures of any authorities. It was also stated therein that there was intervention by the minister concerned for appointment of Subodh Kalita to the post of LDA and as such he was appointed. It be stated herein that the said letter dated 02.11.2007 was obtained by the petitioner by making an application under the RTI Act. Thereafter, there were number of correspondence between the authorities concerned and the petitioner.

¶33

In the mean time, there was another advertisement issued by the authorities for filling up the post in the said school and the petitioner being aggrieved by his non-appointment and the fresh advertisement filed the writ petition registered as WP(C) no. 286 of 2016, wherein he had prayed for a direction by the authorities to appoint him to the vacant post of LDA in Bamuni High School. In the said writ proceedings, an affidavit was filed by Director of Secondary Education, wherein it was stated for the first time that

¶34

Page No.# 5/8

¶35

some corrections were seem to have been made in the answer scripts of the petitioner. The said writ petition was taken up for disposal and this Court vide order dated 04.10.2019 had observed that the authorities had not complied with the Courts order dated 05.04.2001 passed in earlier writ petition mentioned above as well as 02.01.2006 passed in another writ petition mentioned above. The Court had further directed the authorities to pay an exemplary cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- for non compliance of the Courts order, which however was relaxed later on, on an application made by the department i.e. in a review petition. It was further directed by the said order that the Commissioner and Secretary Education Department should comply with the order dated 02.01.2006 without fail with the further observation that after complying with the judgment dated 02.01.2006, the authorities would decide to proceed with the advertisement dated 11.12.2015.

¶36

The said decision was passed in the year 2019 by this Court, however, the authorities sat over the matter and nothing was done by them for years altogether and that finally on 26.06.2023 i.e. after a period of four years, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, School Education Department passed the impugned order on 26.06.2026 stating inter alia that there were two lists after the advertisement in the year 1998, one list showed Subodh Kalita ranking in first position with petitioner in the second position and the other i.e. penal of candidates showed petitioner to have scored the highest mark and also that the first list had no signatures of the authorities and the list showing penal of candidates had two signatures but without designations. It was also stated that appointment of Subodh Kalita was done at the behest of minister concerned. Further it was stated that the answer scripts of the petitioner was found over written, for which the same was sent for

¶37

Page No.# 6/8

¶38

examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the order, the authority concerned stated that appointment of Subodh Kalita was not found to be appropriate on the basis of the list which had no signature and further that claim of the petitioner also could not be considered in view of the manipulated marks. It was further stipulated that the Government has also decided not to take any steps pursuant to the second advertisement dated 11.12.2015 and as such it was finally decided that the department shall call for fresh recruitment to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School.

¶39

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fought since the year 1999 and although he stood first in the penal of list of candidates, he was not appointed to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School and in his place another candidate was appointed that too with the intervention of minister concerned.

¶40

He further submits that the issue of manipulation in the answer script was never placed over the years during the proceedings before the Court before hand and it is only in the year 2018 that the authorities had stated in the affidavits that there is some manipulation which they had send to the FSL for examination.

¶41

On the other hand, Ms. H. Terangpi, learned Standing Counsel for Secondary Education submits that anomalies are found in the answer scripts of the petitioner and as such he could not be appointed to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School.

¶42

It is noticed that the petitioner for his non appointment to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School had approached this Court in 1999 itself and got an order for considering his case for appointment to the said post but he was not appointed on the ground that there was ban on appointment and

¶43

Page No.# 7/8

¶44

thereafter he again approached this Court and got an order for considering his appointment. The same did not result in any fruitful exercise in favor of the petitioner rather it was found by the petitioner that he first stood in the penal of candidates but yet due to intervention of the minister concerned he could not be appointed. Thereafter, he again approached this Court and this Court after imposing exemplary cost had directed the authorities to comply with the order of considering his candidature for appointment to the post of LDA still nothing was done for years and finally in the year 2023, the impugned order was passed by which it was stated that there were anomalies in his answer scripts and that the list showing penal of candidates had two signatures but without any designation and as such his appointment to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School was not given. It is seen that before 2019, the alleged issue of over writing in his answer script was never placed before the Court or by any information. It was rather by an application under the RTI Act that the petitioner got the information that he stood first in the list of penal of candidates and that due to intervention by a minister concerned, Subodh Kalita was appointed as the LDA. He obtained Court's order for considering his appointment to the post of LDA but for so many years he was not considered rather his candidature was rejected on one ground or the other, first due to ban of appointment, second due to alleged over writing in his answer scripts and also due to absence of designation of the authorities who had put their signatures in the list of penal of candidates. Further, it is seen that the answer scripts were sent to the FSL for examination but till date no report is forthcoming and the petitioner is not appointed for no fault of his and that over the years, the petitioner had also developed a legitimate expectation of being appointed in the Bamuni High

¶45

Page No.# 8/8

¶46

School. As such, this Court directs the Secretary of the School Education to appoint the petitioner to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School if the said post is lying vacant. It is seen that nothing is done after the advertisement of 2015 and no appointment is made to the post of LDA in Bamuni High School till date and as such there will be vacant post lying in the said school wherein the petitioner can be accommodated. The said exercise be done within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is further directed that if any anomalies are found during the examination by the FSL, necessary actions under the law should be taken by the authorities. 12. Petition is disposed of.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Comparing Assistant

Chandan Ch Kalita v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Ch Kalita v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kitusmita Barman Vs the Assam Public Service Commission and 2 Ors.

Manomati Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam Vs Sri Khagen Saikia

Jamal Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

All Assam Development Authority Employees Joint Council and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 27 Ors.

Kularanjan Das Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 Ors.