Non-Compliance with District Selection Committee and State Selection Board Procedures Vitiates Promotion Process Under 2018 Rules.

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher since 2010, challenged the Select List dated 12.03.2024 and the subsequent promotion of Respondent No. 7 to the post of Headmistress of Barkola High School.

The petitioner was ranked at Serial No. 50 and Respondent No. 7 at Serial No. 51 in the final gradation list dated 16.12.2023.

Despite the petitioner’s seniority and tenure as In-charge Headmistress, the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) authorities selected Respondent No. 7 based on an interview conducted by a "Departmental Promotion Committee," where Respondent No. 7 secured higher marks (50 vs 35).

The petitioner alleged the selection violated the statutory rules governing provincialized schools.

1. Whether the selection process for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress conducted by the BTC authorities complied with the procedure established under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the non-joinder of all selected candidates in the impugned list.

Rule 14 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, which mandates that the post of Headmaster be filled via promotion based on seniority and satisfactory ACRs for the last three consecutive years, following recommendations by a District Selection Committee (DSC).

Rule 16(2) defines the specific composition of the DSC.

Rule 14(3)(iii) and (iv) require the DSC to prepare a select list double the number of vacancies and submit it to the State Selection Board for final verification and publication.

The Court also relied on A. Janardhana v. Union of India, which held that where a policy or the validity of a selection criterion is challenged rather than individual seniority, the non-joinder of every affected employee is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition.

The Court observed that the selection was conducted by a "Departmental Promotion Committee" (DPC) rather than the "District Selection Committee" (DSC) mandated by Rule 16(2).

The BTC’s argument—that the DPC serves the same purpose—was rejected because the DPC's statutory role under Rule 15 is limited to promoting Assistant Headmasters, not Headmasters.

The procedural requirements of Rule 14(3) were bypassed: the DSC failed to prepare a double-sized list, and the list was never submitted to the State Selection Board (or the BTC Director acting in that capacity) for verification.

The Court noted that marks were allotted based on a personal interview, whereas Rule 14(1) emphasizes seniority and ACRs as the primary criteria.

Following A. Janardhana, the Court held the petition maintainable because the petitioner challenged the core legality of the selection process itself.

The Court set aside the Select List dated 12.03.2024 for Udalguri District and all consequential promotion orders, including that of Respondent No. 7, and directed the respondents to conduct a fresh selection process within four months in accordance with Rule 14 of the 2018 Rules.