Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education; Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, SSA/RMSA; Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. H. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 19.

2. Challenging the selection process for the appointment of Principals of Adarsha Vidyalayas pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.04.2022, the consequential selection list dated 01.06.2022 and the appointment orders dated 03.06.2022, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is an M.Sc. with B.Ed. and Ph.D. degree holder and has passed the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) three times. Apart from the above educational qualifications, she has undergone various academic courses, published four books on environmental science and has had an excellent academic career.

4. An advertisement was published by the Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan, through the office of the Director of Technical Education, Assam, inviting applications from intending candidates who are permanent residents of Assam for recruitment to 23 posts of Principal of Adarsha Vidyalayas on a contractual basis, which may be renewed depending on satisfactory annual performance.

5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner offered her candidature. The respondent authorities published a list of 104 shortlisted candidates, vide notice dated 21.05.2022, in which the name of the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner then filed an RTI application. Following receipt of the RTI application, another list was published, vide notice dated 28.05.2022, in which the names of 48 candidates, including the name of the petitioner, were shortlisted as found qualified for the personal interview after completion of document verification. The shortlisted candidates were requested to appear for the interview on 31.05.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the interview along with the other candidates.

6. The respondent authorities, by the select list dated 01.06.2022, published the final list of selected candidates for the post of Principals, wherein 18 candidates were selected. However, the petitioner was not selected. Thereafter, vide an order dated 03.06.2022, appointment orders were issued to the selected 18 candidates as Principals of Adarsha Vidyalayas.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that, from reliable sources, she came to know that she had performed better than the 18 candidates who were selected. As per the advertisement, 23 posts of Principals were to be filled up. However, selection and appointment were made only for 18 candidates, keeping 5 posts vacant, which, according to the petitioner, makes the selection process appear vague and mysterious. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her to at least one of the posts occupied by candidates whose merit position is below her, or to any one of the remaining five unfilled vacant posts.

8. Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the notice dated 28.05.2022, by which candidates were shortlisted upon being found qualified for the personal interview after completion of document verification, submits that since the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 2 in the said list, she is more meritorious than most of the selected and appointed candidates. Moreover, the petitioner is the only candidate possessing a doctorate degree. Therefore, the non-selection of the petitioner is illegal and as such, the respondent authorities may be directed to select and appoint her as Principal.

9. He submits, on instructions, that the candidate selected at Serial No. 13 in the select list is not a permanent resident of Assam. Therefore, the selection of the said candidate is in violation of the advertisement, as it clearly provides that the candidate must be a permanent resident of Assam. He further submits that, although 23 posts of Principals were advertised to be filled up, only 18 candidates have been selected and appointed, thereby leaving 5 (five) posts unfilled. He, therefore, submits that, considering the doctorate degree of the petitioner, the respondent authorities may be directed to appoint the petitioner to any one of the said 5 (five) vacant posts.

10. The respondent, namely the Managing Director of Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan, Assam, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, justifying the nonselection of the petitioner in detail.

11. Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, submits that the first provisional list of 104 applicants, whose applications were found to be in order, were shortlisted for personal interview. The candidates who had scored 50% and above of credit marks were called for document verification. The total credit score marks as per the application form was 50, which is based on Educational Qualification and Academic Career, Teaching Experience, Leadership Skills, Administrative Activities, Excellence in Sports and Extra-Curricular Activities, Excellence in Academic Activities and Excellence in Co-Curricular Activities. As the petitioner could not score the minimum 50% marks, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the first provisional list of applicants who were called for document verification.

12. He submits that, due to lesser number of qualified candidates, the authorities brought down the cut-off marks up to 45%, and accordingly, the second provisional list of candidates for document verification was published on 28.05.2022, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 2. The petitioner participated in the document verification process and appeared before the interview board; however, the petitioner could not be selected, and more meritorious candidates were selected and appointed accordingly. He submits that the claim of the petitioner of being the lone candidate having Ph.D. does not entitle her to any additional marks as credit score, as no marks are allotted for Ph.D. in terms of the prescribed requirement for the post of Principal. Since the petitioner could not succeed in the interview, she cannot question the selection process as no material is brought on record to indicate any irregularity.

13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

14. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.04.2022 for filling up 23 posts of Principal at Adarsha Vidyalayas, the petitioner, along with several other candidates, participated in the selection process. The respondent authorities, after conducting the selection process, including the interview, published the select list on 01.06.2022, in which 18 candidates were selected. The petitioner could not be selected, obviously due to her performance in the selection process. The respondent authorities subsequently appointed the 18 selected candidates as Principals of Adarsha Vidyalayas vide an order dated 03.06.2022.

15. Essentially, the claim of the petitioner is to the effect that she had an excellent academic career, having a Ph.D. degree, and performed well in the interview, and also that her name appeared at Serial No. 2 in the list dated 28.05.2022, who were found to be qualified for the personal interview. Therefore, she ought to have been selected and appointed to the post of Principal of Adarsha Vidyalaya.

16. Perusal of the notice dated 28.05.2022 clearly reflects that it is a list of applicants found to be qualified for the personal interview after completion of document verification held on 25.05.2022 and 28.05.2022. The notice reflects the shortlisting of 48 candidates for the interview only and it would not, by itself, entitle any ranking or guarantee of selection. Thus, mere appearance of the name at Serial No. 2 cannot, on its own, entitle the petitioner to claim selection and appointment. Accordingly, claim based solely on the position of the petitioner in the shortlisting notice is entirely misplaced and without basis.

17. With respect to claim of the petitioner of having an excellent academic career and a doctorate degree, it appears to be based on a total misconception, as such academic excellence and a Ph.D. are not essential requirements for the post of Principal under the terms of the advertisement, although same may be taken into consideration during interview. The respondent authorities, after verification of the documents, shortlisted 48 candidates, including the petitioner, based on their academic records and educational qualifications. There is no provision in the advertisement that grants any preference to a candidate holding a Ph.D. Therefore, academic excellence and possession of a Ph.D. alone would not automatically entitle the petitioner for selection and appointment on having participated in the interview. The respondent authorities appear to have conducted the selection process in a fair and transparent manner, as is clearly reflected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan.

18. Regard being had to the allegation of selection and appointment of a candidate who is not a permanent resident of Assam, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the claim, except a bald submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner; therefore, the same is considered for rejection.

19. The detailed break-up of the credit score, totaling 50 marks, is provided in the application form. The scoring is based on the following criteria: Educational Qualification and Academic Career (Maximum Credit Score – 20 Marks), Teaching Experience (Maximum Credit Score – 6 Marks), Leadership Skills (Maximum Credit Score – 4 Marks), Administrative Activities (Maximum Credit Score – 3 Marks), Excellence in Sports and Extra-Curricular Activities (Maximum Credit Score – 5 Marks), Excellence in Academic Activities (Maximum Credit Score – 7 Marks), and Excellence in Co-Curricular Activities (Maximum Credit Score – 5 Marks).

20. It is noticed that initially the petitioner did not score the minimum cut-off marks of 50%, and therefore, her name was not shortlisted in the first Provisional List of applicants for document verification. However, as the respondents found that there were fewer qualified candidates, the required cutoff percentage was lowered to 45%. Accordingly, the petitioner was found to be qualified in the second list to appear for the interview. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the selection process but did not succeed. It is also seen that, except for the two limited grounds on which the petitioner challenges the selection process, she has failed to bring any material to substantiate any irregularity.

21. It is a settled proposition of law that once a candidate takes a calculated chance to participate in a selection process, and the result is not palatable to the candidate, he or she cannot agitate or challenge the process. In Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, it has been held that a candidate who appears in a selection process, fully aware of the procedural norms and eligibility requirements, cannot, solely because the result was not palatable to him, subsequently question the method of selection or eligibility criteria. This principle has been reiterated in Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 and Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454.

22. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the selection process for appointment to the posts of Principals of Adarsha Vidyalayas. Thus, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of merit.