Service rendered as regular appointee prior to annulment counts as experience for subsequent selection.

The petitioner, a subject teacher at Kolaigaon H.S. School, challenged the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 5 as the school's Principal.

In a previous litigation (2018), the Gauhati High Court had set aside Respondent No. 5’s initial appointment because it was made from a waiting list after a vacancy arose due to superannuation, rather than via a fresh selection.

The Court then directed a new selection process but allowed Respondent No. 5 to continue as "In-charge Principal" in the interim.

Following a fresh advertisement on 12.09.2019, both the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 applied. The Selection Committee awarded both candidates a total of 17 marks. However, Respondent No. 5 was selected based on receiving 1 mark for experience as an "In-charge Principal" and 2 marks for ACR, whereas the petitioner received 1 mark for ACR (after certain records were found "false").

The petitioner challenged the 1 mark awarded to Respondent No. 5 for "In-charge" experience, arguing he had not completed the requisite one-year tenure if the period was counted only from his formal reversion in September 2019.

1. Whether the period served by Respondent No. 5 as Principal (both under the challenged appointment and the court-ordered interim arrangement) can be counted toward "experience as In-charge Principal" for awarding selection marks.

2. Whether the selection process and awarding of marks by the BTC Level Selection Committee were legally sustainable.

The court applied Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2003.

Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018, which stipulates awarding 1 mark for each year of experience as an In-charge Principal (subject to a maximum of 3 marks).

The principle that "experience" constitutes knowledge or skill gained through practical acquaintance with a job, citing Chaudhary Charan Singh v. Haryana Agricultural University (2024) and Bara Singh vs. Sher-i-Kashmir University (1996) to affirm that work performed in administrative exigencies without a permanent right to a post still constitutes valid professional experience.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s narrow interpretation that Respondent No. 5’s "In-charge" experience only began in September 2019. It reasoned that Respondent No. 5 had continuously discharged the duties of Principal from 31.01.2018 until the second selection process in 2020.

The Court observed that invalidating the prior period of service (between the first appointment and the second selection) would create an "anomalous situation" where that period would count as neither teacher nor principal experience.

Applying the definition of "experience" as functional knowledge gained on the job, the Court held that since Respondent No. 5 effectively held the office for over two years, the grant of 1 mark was not only legal but arguably conservative.

Regarding the ACR marks, the Court noted the petitioner failed to specifically challenge the findings that his submitted ACRs were "false," thereby precluding judicial review of that marking.

The Court affirmed that the experience gained by Respondent No. 5 during the pendency of litigation and under court-ordered interim arrangements was valid for the purpose of awarding marks under the 2018 Office Memorandum. The writ petition was dismissed, and the appointment of Respondent No. 5 was upheld.