Gauhati HC Rejects Assistant Teacher’s Bid for Principal Post After He Missed the Ad and Failed to Challenge the Appointment

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at Grahampur Higher Secondary School, sought appointment as its Principal, claiming eligibility and seniority.

The BTC authorities advertised 19 Principal vacancies on 2 September 2024, with applications due by 18 September 2024. The petitioner did not apply, stating that the advertisement had not reached his school; the Court noted that it had been published in widely circulated newspapers.

The respondent no. 4 was appointed Principal on 30 January 2025. The petitioner sought a direction for his own appointment but did not specifically challenge that appointment order or implead the Principal In-Charge or the other appointees to the 19 vacancies.

Rule 12(1) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018 provides for direct recruitment to the post of Principal from the specified cadres. Rule 12(3) prescribes the minimum qualifications, while Rule 12(5)(i)–(ii) requires assessment of vacancies and invitation of applications through an advertisement published in at least two widely circulated local newspapers, as well as on the school notice board.

The Court held that, where the advertisement was published in widely circulated newspapers, any deficiency in publication on the school notice board was inconsequential.

It also applied the principles that a candidate who did not participate in the selection process could not, in the circumstances, assail the selected candidate’s qualifications through a mandamus petition alone, and that the appointment order and necessary affected parties had to be brought before the Court.

The petitioner did not apply by the stipulated deadline, although the advertisement had been published in widely circulated newspapers in accordance with Rule 12(5)(ii). His claim that the advertisement had not reached the school was not established; the Principal In-Charge, whose alleged communications supported that claim, was not joined as a respondent.

Because the petitioner had not participated in the selection, the Court declined to consider his claims of superior eligibility and seniority or his objections to respondent no. 4’s qualifications and experience. Further, the petitioner sought mandamus without specifically challenging respondent no. 4’s appointment order, and the advertisement covered 19 vacancies, yet the other appointees were not impleaded.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.