A consequential appointment cannot be successfully challenged without challenging the underlying selection recommendation.

The petitioner, a Subject Teacher (Mathematics) at Public Higher Secondary School, Lanka, applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 18 June 2016 for appointment as Principal of Abdul Hasib Higher Secondary School, Hojai, and appeared in the interview held on 11 December 2016.

The School Selection Committee prepared a panel in which Faiz Md. Barbhuiyan secured 13 marks, respondent No. 5, Abdul Rob, secured 11.5 marks, and the petitioner secured 11 marks.

Following complaints regarding manipulation of the school’s pass-percentage figures, the appointment was kept in abeyance and an enquiry was ordered.

The State Selection Board thereafter reconsidered the matter by taking into account the results of both Arts and Science streams for 2015 and 2016. It assessed respondent No. 5 at 11.1 marks and the petitioner at 11 marks, and recommended respondent No. 5 for appointment.

The consequential appointment order dated 8 March 2019 was challenged in the present writ petition.

1. Whether the recommendation made by the State Selection Board suffered from illegality or irregularity?

2. Whether the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal of Abdul Hasib Higher Secondary School was illegal or arbitrary?

3. Whether the petitioner could challenge the appointment order without specifically challenging the State Selection Board’s recommendation on which the appointment was based?

The Court applied Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003. Under Rule 13(2), the School Selection Committee must scrutinise applications, conduct interviews, and prepare a panel of three candidates based on qualities including leadership skill, administrative ability, integrity, and commanding personality; under Rule 13(3), the panel is forwarded to the State Selection Board; and under Rule 13(4), the State Selection Board prepares the select list for Government approval.

The proviso to Rule 13(5) authorises the State Selection Board to make the selection and prepare the panel where the School Selection Committee fails to do so within six months of the vacancy.

The Court further applied the departmental guidelines dated 23 June 2016, under which five marks for leadership skill were to be assessed with reference to the HSLC/AHM/HSSLC results of both the current and preceding years, including the relevant Arts and Science streams.

The Court held that the State Selection Board was not required to act as a mere “post office” and could correct an erroneous assessment made by the School Selection Committee.

The Court held that the original assessment was affected by an incorrect pass-percentage figure because the enquiry considered only the Science stream, whereas the applicable guidelines required consideration of both Arts and Science results for 2015 and 2016.

On a proper application of the guidelines, the State Selection Board reassessed respondent No. 5’s marks at 11.1 and the petitioner’s at 11, thereby restoring respondent No. 5’s higher position.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Board lacked power to undertake the reassessment, reasoning that Rule 13 empowered the Board to make the selection and prepare the panel and that it could not merely forward an erroneous panel to the Government.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the State Selection Board’s recommendation itself, although that recommendation constituted the foundation of respondent No. 5’s appointment.

Consequently, the appointment could not successfully be invalidated through a challenge directed only against the consequential appointment order.

It held that the State Selection Board’s reassessment and recommendation did not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity, and that respondent No. 5’s appointment as Principal was neither illegal nor arbitrary.

It further held that the petitioner could not successfully challenge the appointment without challenging the underlying recommendation of the State Selection Board.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.