Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 857 (GAU)

Shewali Kakoti v. State of Assam

2016-09-15

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Though the above bunch of cases was heard analogously since the subject matter of all the writ petitions was found to be inter-related, WP(C) No. 1955/2013 (Shewali Kakoti & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors), being the lead case, is taken up for disposal separately for the sake of convenience. 2. Initially 29 petitioners had joined together and instituted the writ petition in WP(C) No. 1955/2013 as a common proceeding. Subsequently, name of petitioner No. 27 was deleted as per order of the Court dated 16.06.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 1820/2014. As such WP(C) No. 1955/2013 is now being prosecuted by 28 petitioners. 3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners seek quashing of select list dated 06.04.2013 published by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department (respondent No. 2) and further seek a direction to the State respondents in the Education Department to publish a fresh select list strictly on merit in terms of judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 passed in Writ Appeal No. 358/2007 and other connected cases. 4. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 5. According to the petitioners, they are Master Degree holders in their respective subjects and are qualified to be appointed as Post-Graduate Teacher i.e. Subject Teacher in the provincialised Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Assam as per provisions contained in the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982. 6. Director of Secondary Education, Assam had issued an advertisement on 08.02.2003 for filling up of vacancies in the post of Post Graduate Teacher in the provincialised Higher Secondary Schools of Assam. It was stated that applications were required to be submitted in the respective schools where vacancy existed as per confirmation made by the concerned Inspector of Schools. Such applications were required to be submitted within 20 days from the date of publication of the advertisement. It was stated that selection would be made centrally in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam and that provisions relating to reservation would be applicable as per the Reservation Act in force. Educational qualification prescribed was 2nd Class Masters Degree with IInd Division at least in one of the two examinations of matriculation and higher secondary, relaxable for SC & ST candidates. Educational qualification prescribed was 2nd Class Masters Degree with IInd Division at least in one of the two examinations of matriculation and higher secondary, relaxable for SC & ST candidates. Age limit prescribed was between 21 years to 36 years as on 01.01.2003, relaxation upto 5 years in case of SC & ST candidates. 7. It is stated that petitioners had applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher in different subjects in various provincialised Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to the said advertisement dated 08.02.2003. Petitioners participated in the selection process which was concluded by publication of the select list dated 27.02.2006. 8. This led to filing of several writ petitions before the Court, one set of writ petitions was filed seeking implementation of the select list dated 27.02.2006 and the other set contesting the validity of the select list dated 27.02.2006. At this stage, it may be noticed that when the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 was published, the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 (1982 Rules) were in force but after a few days of the advertisement, the 1982 Rules were repealed and a fresh set of Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which is known as the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003. Single Bench held that the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 should be held in accordance with the 1982 Rules and therefore directed redoing of the selection process as per the 1982 Rules, confining the selection process to amongst those candidates who had responded to the 08.02.2003 advertisement. However, Single Bench also permitted those petitioners who were before the Court but had not responded to the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 to participate in the selection process. 9. This led to filing of a number of Writ Appeals, the lead appeal being Writ Appeal No. 358/2007. All the writ appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 11.12.2008. 9. This led to filing of a number of Writ Appeals, the lead appeal being Writ Appeal No. 358/2007. All the writ appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 11.12.2008. The Division Bench held that the State could not be compelled to give appointments on the basis of the select list dated 27.02.2006 and directed the State to conduct the recruitment process afresh for the vacancies for which the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 was issued limiting the recruitment process to those who had responded to the advertisement and also to those who were before the Court but had not responded to the advertisement but having the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement. Be it stated that in the course of the proceedings before the Court, it came on record that the number of vacancies in the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (Subject Teacher) covered by the said advertisement dated 08.02.2003 was assessed at 254. Specific direction of the Division Bench was that apart from the candidates who had responded to the advertisement dated 08.02.2003, candidature of 101 candidates who though had not responded to the advertisement but were before the Court were also to be considered in the denovo selection process. 10. Following the Division Bench judgment, Director of Secondary Education, Assam (respondent No. 4) issued consequential advertisement dated 31.03.2010 notifying the dates for holding of interview (Viva voce). It is stated that interview was held during the period from 19.04.2010 to 27.02.2011 wherein about 4000 candidates had appeared against the 254 vacancies in about 20 numbers of subjects. 11. After the interview process was over, there was delay in publication of the select list which created anxiety and apprehension in the minds of the candidates, including the petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners submitted representation on 09.05.2011 for publication of the select list. As there was no response, further representation was submitted on 18.01.2012. 12. This also led to filing of writ petitions before the Court. In one set of writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 953/2012 which was heard with other analogous cases, a Single Bench of this Court passed order on 14.06.2012 directing publication of the select list. Such direction was issued on the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General that delay in publication of the select list was caused because of intervening litigation. Such direction was issued on the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General that delay in publication of the select list was caused because of intervening litigation. It was also submitted that certain anomalies were detected in the award of marks in the viva voce test which were required to be rectified. On the basis of the statement made by the learned Addl. Advocate General before the Court that select list would be published within 6 (six) weeks, the writ petitions were disposed of with the direction that the select list would have to be published in accordance with law and if the petitioners were still aggrieved, it would be open to them to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. For non-compliance of such direction, contempt petitions were also filed. 13. It was at that stage that respondent No. 2 published the select list on 06.04.2013 comprising of 216 candidates. 14. With the grievance that the procedure followed in the selection process culminating in the select list dated 06.04.2013 was in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 11.12.2008, the present writ petition came to be filed. 15. This Court by order dated 10.04.2013 had issued notice with an interim direction that appointment of the candidates notified through the select list dated 06.04.2013 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition, further restraining the State from giving appointment to persons whose names were not included in the select list dated 06.04.2013. 16. After entertaining of the present writ petition, several writ petitions came to be filed mostly raising individual grievance relating to non-selection. All the writ petitions were clubbed together forming part of the bunch of writ petitions which were heard together. 17. Respondent No. 4 i.e. Director of Secondary Education, Assam in his affidavit has stated that the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 did not debar any candidate from applying in more than one school and that the advertisement did not mention about the number of vacancies. Though select list of 254 candidates was prepared on 27.02.2006 appointment based thereon could not be made because of litigation before the Court. Ultimately Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 directed the Director of Secondary Education to hold the selection again but limiting the recruitment to those candidates mentioned in the judgment. Though select list of 254 candidates was prepared on 27.02.2006 appointment based thereon could not be made because of litigation before the Court. Ultimately Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 directed the Director of Secondary Education to hold the selection again but limiting the recruitment to those candidates mentioned in the judgment. Following the same, Director of Secondary Education issued notice on 31.03.2010 notifying the candidates about the schedule of interview. Interview was held centrally in the office of the Director of Secondary Education. It is stated that after the present incumbent had joined office as Director of Secondary Education, he noticed over-writings in the award of marks to the candidates in the interview sheets. This was brought to the notice of the Government on 22.01.2011 and in this connection a first information was lodged before the Dispur Police Station on the basis of which Dispur PS Case No. 798/2012 was registered. Having regard to the anomalies which were noticed as above, Government directed preparation of the select list school wise and also relaxed the provision relating to allotment of interview marks. In this connection, two notifications dated 04.04.2013 were issued by the Government by taking recourse to the relaxation provision contained in Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules. Since the select list did not debar a candidate from applying in more than one school, naturally some of the meritorious candidates found themselves selected in more than one school where they had applied. It is stated that certain vacancies which had occurred after issuance of the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 were included in the list of 254 vacancies. Hence the select list which was published on 06.04.2013 contained names of 216 candidates. Reference has also been made to the provisions contained in Section 7 (1) (g) of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005 which provides for selection of one candidate against one vacancy. Since applications were received school wise names of the selected candidates appear school wise in order of merit and as per direction of the Government the select list was published where after the selected candidates were appointed in their respective schools following which they had joined and are presently working. 18. Petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit as well as additional affidavit. 18. Petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit as well as additional affidavit. A number of affidavits have also been filed by the selected candidates justifying their selection and appointments and also placing on record the fact that they are rendering service since then. 19. Director of Secondary Education, Assam i.e. respondent No. 4 has filed additional affidavit on 18.04.2016. As per this affidavit, it is stated that the reason for confining the select list to 216 candidates and not 254 candidates was that 17 posts were found filled up by way of transfer; 7 numbers of vacancies had occurred after the advertisement dated 08.02.2003; 3 numbers of vacancies were found within the jurisdiction of Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC); applications could not be found against 10 vacancies and lastly, one selected candidate was found disqualified. Thus a total of 38 vacancies were excluded from 254 vacancies thereby limiting the number of vacancies covered by the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 to 216. It has been explained that since the select list was prepared school wise and since candidates were not debarred from appearing in more than one school, names of some of the selected candidates appeared in more than one school on account of their merit. Number of such candidates has been assessed at 27. It is stated that out of 216 selected candidates, 125 had joined their respective posts; 91 candidates did not join and 23 numbers of vacancies could not be filled up on account of issues relating to reservation. In this affidavit, the Director has also placed on record the fact that large number of vacancies had occurred after the advertisement was issued on 08.02.2003. It is stated that in the meanwhile National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had revised the eligibility criteria for Post-Graduate Teachers making BEd./BT degree mandatory. Consequently, the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 was amended in the year 2012 providing for BEd/BT degree as mandatory eligibility qualification for Post-Graduate Teacher. Subsequently passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) has also been made mandatory. 20. State of Assam has also filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 10.04.2013 which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 80/2015. 21. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Govt. of Assam, Ms. 20. State of Assam has also filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 10.04.2013 which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 80/2015. 21. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Govt. of Assam, Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Govt. of Assam and Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for some of the private respondents. 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that validity of the selection process undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 would have to be judged on the basis of the Division Bench judgment dated 11.12.2008, the previous select list having been interdicted by the Court. He submits that Division Bench had made it abundantly clear that the selection process would have to be conducted as per the 1982 Rules. 1982 Rules did not provide for school wise selection. In fact the 1982 Rules provided for constituency wise selection. Moreover, awarding of marks on the basis of performance in the oral interview is an essential part of the selection procedure provided under the 1982 Rules. He submits that these two conditions were fundamental conditions of recruitment under the 1982 Rules and could not have been relaxed by taking recourse to Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules. In any case, what Rule 15 visualised was individual cases of hardship and to overcome such individual cases of hardship, power of relaxation was provided. Rule 15 therefore did not visualise en-mass relaxation of the fundamental conditions of recruitment. Exclusion of marks allotted for interview and going for school wise selection amounted to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process which is not permissible in law. On a query by the Court, he submits that though this aspect of the matter has not been specifically pleaded in the present writ petition, the two Government notifications dated 04.04.2013 providing for such relaxation have been put to challenge in two collateral proceedings in WP(C) Nos. 3283/2013 and 4118/2013. Besides this, there are several instances of apparent anomalies appearing in the select list dated 06.04.2013, such as, selection of one candidate in more than one school, rendering such selection untenable. 3283/2013 and 4118/2013. Besides this, there are several instances of apparent anomalies appearing in the select list dated 06.04.2013, such as, selection of one candidate in more than one school, rendering such selection untenable. Therefore it would be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to hold the selection afresh strictly in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 11.12.2008. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (2000) 7 SCC 561 (Suraj Prakesh Gupta v. State of J & K). (2008) 3 SCC 512 (K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh). (2011) 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty). 23. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Assam appearing on behalf of the Education Department has heavily replied upon the two affidavits filed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. He submits that when it came to the notice of the authorities that there were instances of manipulation in the award of marks at the stage of interview, a conscious decision was taken to exclude the interview marks from consideration. For this purpose the State had to invoke its power of relaxation as provided under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules. Exercise of such power is bona fide. By exclusion of interview marks from consideration neither any undue benefit has been conferred on any candidate nor any prejudice has been caused to such candidate. He submits that interview was dispensed with to eliminate all possibility of foul play and to protect the genuine candidates. In this connection he has placed reliance on (2009) 4 SCC 170 , Union of India v. Dharampal. Referring to school wise selection, he submits that this was one of the conditions of the advertisement and therefore to remove any kind of anomaly and ambiguity it had to be clarified that selection would be conducted school wise and not constituency wise as provided under the 1982 Rules which would be in tune with the advertisement. To enable school wise selection, the relaxation clause under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules had to be invoked. Mr. Saikia has also referred to Section 7(1)(g) of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the challenge made to the select list dated 06.04.2013 and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. 24. Mr. Mr. Saikia has also referred to Section 7(1)(g) of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the challenge made to the select list dated 06.04.2013 and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. 24. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel submits that when the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 was issued, the authorities in the Education Department were under the belief that the 1982 Rules would be repealed and the 2003 Rules would be made effective. Keeping the 2003 Rules in mind the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 was issued but unfortunately for various reasons there was delay in notifying the 2003 Rules and in the meanwhile the advertisement came to be issued when the 1982 Rules were still holding the field. After the Division Bench directed holding of selection denovo on the basis of the 1982 Rules, recourse to the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules became necessary to bring the selection process, which was initially intended to be governed by the 2003 Rules, in tune with the 1982 Rules. He submits that such relaxation is legally permissible and was certainly a valid exercise of power in the present case. He therefore submits that there was no error or infirmity in the publication of the select list dated 06.04.2013 and question of changing the rules of the game midway does not arise at all. Learned Sr. Counsel has also placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:- (1990) 2 SCC 189 (JC Yadav v. State of Haryana) (1998) 4 SCC 179 (Ashok Kr. Uppal v. State of J&K) 1999 (2) GLT 166 (Phanindra Dutta v. Harendra Nath Das) (2015) 1 SCC 642 (Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of UP). 25. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Also perused the voluminous case record. 26. Since the Division Bench judgment dated 11.12.2008 is the sheet-anchor of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to straightway advert to the said decision of the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that when the advertisement was issued on 08.02.2003, the Recruitment Rules which were in force as on 08.02.2003 would be applicable i.e. the 1982 Rules. 26. Since the Division Bench judgment dated 11.12.2008 is the sheet-anchor of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to straightway advert to the said decision of the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that when the advertisement was issued on 08.02.2003, the Recruitment Rules which were in force as on 08.02.2003 would be applicable i.e. the 1982 Rules. It was held that the 2003 Rules which came into force subsequently could not be made applicable to the recruitment process already set in motion by the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 as that would amount to changing the rules of the game in the mid stream. In such circumstances, the Division Bench directed the State to conduct the recruitment process for the 254 posts covered by the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 afresh but limiting the recruitment process to only those candidates mentioned in the judgment. 27. At this stage, what is discernible is that the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 did not mention the number of vacancies. The advertisement only stated that applications would be received school wise where vacancies existed but selection would be made centrally at the directorate level. Though the selection process was concluded by publication of select list dated 27.02.2006, the same was interdicted by the Division Bench by holding that the process undertaken was not in conformity with the 1982 Rules and therefore directed initiation of denovo recruitment process on the basis of the 1982 Rules but limiting the candidature to those category of candidates mentioned in the judgment. In the course of the deliberation, it was also noticed that the number of vacancies covered by the said advertisement was 254. 28. Having noticed the substance of the Division Bench judgment, the relevant provisions of the 1982 Rules may now be adverted to. As already noticed above, the 1982 Rules were enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per Rule 2 (k) "service" was defined to mean the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service (Service). The service comprised of several grades, including the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (Subject Teacher) which was included in Gr-II. Rule 6 provided the method of recruitment. As per Rule 2 (k) "service" was defined to mean the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service (Service). The service comprised of several grades, including the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (Subject Teacher) which was included in Gr-II. Rule 6 provided the method of recruitment. As per Rule 6, appointment of teachers in provincialised High and Higher Secondary Schools were required to be made by way of direct recruitment only and as per Rule 7, in case of Post-Graduate Teacher, such direct recruitment was to be made on the basis of selection made by the State Level Selection Board by following the procedure provided therein. As per the elaborate procedure provided in Rule 7 (1), the vacancies were required to be assessed and filled up Assam Legislative Assembly Constituency wise with reservation for the reserved categories. The State Level Selection Board on completion of interview was required to prepare constituency wise select list in order of merit subject to reservation where after Director of Secondary Education, Assam was required to publish such select list constituency wise. Validity of such select list was for 1 year. Constitution of State Level Selection Board was provided in Rule 7 (3) and qualification for direct recruitment was provided in Rule 8 read with Schedule-II. As per Schedule-II, qualification prescribed for Post-Graduate Teacher was 2nd class Post-Graduate Degree in the concerned subject. The detailed selection procedure for appointment of Post-Graduate Teacher was provided in Scheduled-III(B). As per the procedure prescribed, the selection was required to be made on the basis of marks obtained out of total marks of 700. Total marks of 700 were apportioned in the following manner:- 1. HSLC - 100 2. HSSLC - 100 3. BA/B.Sc. - 100 4. For having Major Degree at Graduation - 25 5. MA/MSc. - 100 6. BEd/MEd. - 85 7. Experience as Teacher - 50 8. Interview (Viva voce) - 140 29. Before moving ahead, a brief reference to the provisions contained in Rule 15 would be in order as heavy reliance has been placed by the State on this provision. For having Major Degree at Graduation - 25 5. MA/MSc. - 100 6. BEd/MEd. - 85 7. Experience as Teacher - 50 8. Interview (Viva voce) - 140 29. Before moving ahead, a brief reference to the provisions contained in Rule 15 would be in order as heavy reliance has been placed by the State on this provision. As per Rule 15, when the Government was satisfied that portion of or any of these Rules might cause undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement of that Rule to such extent and under such condition as it may consider necessary for dealing with such a case in a just and equitable manner provided that the case of any person shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him then that provided under the Rules. 30. The provisions contained in Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules have been noticed. 31. Having noticed the above, reference may now be made to the two Government notifications, both dated 04.04.2013, issued in exercise of powers under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules. These two notifications have been placed on record in the first affidavit of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. 31. Having noticed the above, reference may now be made to the two Government notifications, both dated 04.04.2013, issued in exercise of powers under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules. These two notifications have been placed on record in the first affidavit of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. For better appreciation, both these notifications are extracted hereunder:- "Notification Dated Dispur the 4th April 2013 No.ASE.310/2009/223: Whereas an advertisement was issued on 08.02.2003 by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam calling applications for filling up the vacancies in the post of Subject Teachers in provincialised Secondary Schools as per relevant provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules of 2003; and Whereas though the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules of 2003 was published on 11.08.2003 the advertisement was made as per procedure laid in the said Service Rules in anticipation of publication in official gazette and some aggrieved persons sought relief from the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court passed order on 04.01.2005 in WP(C) No. 7933/2003 and WP(C) 8319/2003 directing the State respondent to hold interview based on the provision laid down in the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 which actually was in operation prior to coming into force of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules of 2003; and Whereas the selection was made as per provision under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 as amended and it was necessary to prepare the select list School-wise instead of Legislative Assembly Constituency-wise as the applications were received School wise in pursuant to advertisement made as per provision under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003; and Whereas in the legal opinion the Additional Advocate General and Senior Standing Counsel for Education, Gauhati High Court advised the Government to prepare school-wise and subject-wise select list instead of preparing select list constituency-wise for each Assam Legislative Assembly in relaxation of the provision under rule 7(1)(b) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 by invoking its power under rule 15 of the said Rules; and And whereas Government is satisfied that the circumstances exist which render it necessary for it to prepare the Select list School-wise instead of Legislative Assembly Constituency-wise for the post of Subject Teacher in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools in relaxation of rule 7(1)(b) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982. Now, therefore, under provision of rule 15 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982, the Governor of Assam is hereby pleased to order to prepare School-wise Select list instead of Legislative Assembly Constituency-wise for the post of Subject Teacher in pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 and 25.09.2007 in relaxation of rule 7(1)(b) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982." 32. A perusal of this notification would go to show that the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 was issued visualising the selection process to be conducted pursuant to the said advertisement as per provisions of the 2003 Rules since it was anticipated that the 2003 Rules would come into force in the meanwhile. However, this did not happen and the High Court disapproved of the above and directed holding of the recruitment process as per the 1982 Rules which was in force at the time of issuance of the advertisement. Though under the 1982 Rules, the select list was required to be published constituency wise, but the applications were received school wise as per the advertisement. Following legal advice, it was decided to prepare and publish school wise and subject wise select list. Therefore, the relaxation provision under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules was invoked to relax the rigour of Rule 7(1)(b) of the 1982 Rules which enabled the authority to conduct the selection in terms of the advertisement without offending the 1982 Rules. 33. Following legal advice, it was decided to prepare and publish school wise and subject wise select list. Therefore, the relaxation provision under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules was invoked to relax the rigour of Rule 7(1)(b) of the 1982 Rules which enabled the authority to conduct the selection in terms of the advertisement without offending the 1982 Rules. 33. The second notification reads as under:- "Notification Dated Dispur the 4th April, 2013 No. ASE 310/2009/224: Whereas anomalies have been detected in the interview for the post of Subject Teacher in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools that in respect some candidates the marks awarded by the Members of the State Selection Board for viva-voce has been overwritten subsequently either by the Members of the Selection Board or any person without authority which has led to the situation that the deserving candidates may lose their position in the Select List; and Whereas the matter of such overwriting in the marks for viva-voce awarded by the Members of the State Selection Board was referred to the Additional Advocate General and Senior Standing Counsel for Education, Gauhati High Court for his legal opinion and he has advised the Government to exclude the marks for viva-voce due to over-writing in most cases; And whereas Government is satisfied that the circumstances exist which render it necessary for it to finalise the Select list for the post of Subject Teacher in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools by considering the marks that can be attributed for all other criteria by excluding the marks for viva-voce. Now, therefore, under provision of rule 15 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982, the Governor of Assam is hereby pleased to order that there shall no marks for viva-voce in respect of selection of Subject Teacher in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools so far made in response to the advertisement dated 08.02.2003. Provided that such exclusion of marks for the viva-voce has been ordered exclusively in the particular selection process done in response to the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 for 254 nos of Subject Teacher in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools and it shall not be applicable and precedent in any other cases." 34. From the second notification, it transpires that the authority suspected foul play in the award of interview marks by the Selection Board members. From the second notification, it transpires that the authority suspected foul play in the award of interview marks by the Selection Board members. This suspicion was generated as overwriting of marks under the interview head in the interview sheets was detected. Therefore, to eliminate such foul play it was decided to exclude the interview marks altogether for all the candidates. After taking legal opinion, the Government invoked the relaxation clause under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules and excluded the marks allotted under the viva-voce heading from consideration. 35. Having noticed the above, Court may now examine the grounds of challenge to the select list dated 06.04.2013. According to the petitioners, the select list dated 06.04.2013 is contrary to the directions of the Division Bench dated 11.12.2008 in as much as the selection process was not conducted as per the 1982 Rules which was the direction of the Court. In the earlier proceedings it had come on record that number of vacancies were 254 but in the select list which was published on 06.04.2013, the number of selected candidates is 216. The select list reflected selection of one candidate in more than one school. In this connection, petitioners gave certain instances; it was mentioned that name of Smt. Jonali Kakoti appeared against two schools for the post of Subject Teacher in Sanskrit, namely, Meragarh N. Dev Higher Secondary School, Jorhat and Raha Higher Secondary School, Nagaon; likewise, name of Smt. Bondita Pathar appeared against 3 schools for the post of Subject Teacher in Assamese; so also the name of Sri Binoy Kr. Sarma. It is stated that the select list is full of such anomalies. 36. The judgment of the Division Bench has already been noticed above. The substance of the said judgment is that the recruitment process should be redone on the basis of the 1982 Rules. According to the respondents, the recruitment process was redone as per direction of the Court and to bring it in tune with the 1982 Rules read with the advertisement dated 08.02.2003, the two notifications dated 04.04.2013 were issued under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules relaxing the requirement of publishing select list constituency wise and doing away with award of marks for the viva voce segment. But as already noticed, in the present writ petition, there is neither any challenge to the legality and validity of the aforesaid two notifications nor to the competence of the State to issue such notifications. 37. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the above two notifications have been put to challenge in two other writ petitions being heard analogously, namely, WP(C) Nos. 3283/2013 and 4118/2013. I am afraid, such submission can be accepted. For a writ petition to succeed, it must be able to stand on its own feet i.e., on the strength of its pleadings, grounds urged and the relief claimed. It cannot rely upon or draw sustenance from the pleadings or grounds urged or relief claimed in a collateral proceeding. However, in the present case, the writ petition is silent on the legality of the two notifications dated 04.04.2013 despite the fact that these two notifications were brought on record by the Director of Secondary Education in his first counter affidavit. Therefore, in this particular case, it may not be necessary to delve into the question of competence of the State to issue the two notifications dated 04.04.2013 under Rule 15 of the 1982 Rules or the validity of the said notifications. 38. Regarding selection of one candidate in more than one school, such a situation can be tackled and has been tackled by offering the choice of school to the selected candidate. Once the selected candidate opted for a particular school, vacancies in the other school(s) where he/she was also selected would be filled up by the next candidate in order of merit, subject to reservation. 39. In so far the select list containing 216 names as against 254 vacancies is concerned, the Director has already explained in the affidavit the reasons for excluding 38 vacancies from the select list. In any case, the advertisement dated 08.02.2003 not having notified any specific number of vacancies it may not be justified to hold that not-confining the select list to 254 vacancies would be a fatal deviation adversely affecting the validity of the select list. 40. Having discussed the above, it must also be borne in mind that much time has elapsed since issuance of the advertisement dated 08.02.2003, to be precise, more than 13 years. Large number of vacancies in the post of Post-Graduate Teacher have occurred after 08.02.2003. 40. Having discussed the above, it must also be borne in mind that much time has elapsed since issuance of the advertisement dated 08.02.2003, to be precise, more than 13 years. Large number of vacancies in the post of Post-Graduate Teacher have occurred after 08.02.2003. The Recruitment Rules have undergone change by repeal of the 1982 Rules and coming into force of the 2003 Rules. The 2003 Rules itself had undergone major changes in the year 2012 to bring it at par with the eligibility requirement as prescribed by the NCTE guidelines. A new generation of qualified candidates are now available waiting for their chance to compete. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to bring the selection process to its logical conclusion, which in this case has been achieved as Court is of the considered opinion that the selection process culminating in the select list dated 06.04.2013 is in substantial compliance to the Court's order dated 11.12.2008. 41. Cancellation or quashing of a selection process is a drastic measure and, therefore, should not be resorted to lightly. Endeavour of the Court should be to save the selection and not to adopt a fault finding approach. Of course this is not to say that anomalies or illegalities should be overlooked. But while striking at the anomalies or the illegalities, the endeavour should be to remove those without annulling the selection process. Only if the anomalies or irregularities are so grave as to strike at the root of the selection, then the drastic step of cancellation or annulment may have to be resorted to. However, in so far the present case is concerned, as discussed above, the anomalies as pointed out by the petitioners are not of such magnitude to render the selection invalid. 42. That being the position, continuance of the interim order dated 10.04.2013 would no longer be justified, which is accordingly vacated. 43. Writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. 44. Since WP(C) No. 1955/2013 has been dismissed as above, individual orders would now be passed in respect of the other writ petitions forming part of the bunch.