Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1267 (GAU)

A. Priyanka Devi v. State of Assam

2017-09-08

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1168/2016. Also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. B. Saharia, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J.N.U.M. Laskar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 7 in the said writ petition. None appears for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. I have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J.N.U.M. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2014/2016 as well as Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. B. Saharia, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the said writ petition. 2. These 2(two) writ petitions were listed together along with WP(C) No. 742/2016 and were also initially heard together. However, later on, WP(C) No. 742/2016 was de-linked and heard separately. 3. By means of filing the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India registered as WP(C) No. 1168/2016, 2(two) petitioners have prayed for quashing the result of the interview dated 29.01.2016 held for the post of Junior Assistant (LDA) in Lalang Manipuri High School, Cachar, wherein the respondent No. 7 was selected as the first nominee, and for a writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner No. 1 as the Junior Assistant (LDA) in the aforesaid school, she having stood first in the written test. 4. WP(C) No. 2014/2016 was registered on the basis of an application, whereby the respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 1168/2016, as petitioner, has prayed for setting aside and quashing an order dated 02.03.2016 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Cachar District Circle (Annexure-7 of the said writ petition) and the letter dated 07.03.2016 (Annexure-8 of the said writ petition) issued by the Headmaster of Lalang Manipuri High School, whereby the services of the petitioner was discontinued on the basis of an order passed by this Court on 24.02.2016 in WP(C) No. 1168/2016. 5. 5. By the aforesaid order dated 24.2.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 1168/2016, while issuing notice of motion, direction was issued not to make any appointment for the post of Junior Assistant (LDA) in Lalang Manipuri High School until further orders. 6. To vacate the aforesaid order dated 24.02.2016, the respondent No. 7 therein (who is the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 2014/2016) had filed an interlocutory application registered as I.A. No. 1371/2016. 7. As agreed upon, the aforesaid application was treated to be as affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 7 and the affidavit-in-opposition filed thereto, as a reply-affidavit by the petitioner. As agreed upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the 2(two) writ petitions were taken up for disposal. 8. The core dispute between the parties is projected in WP(C) No. 1168/2016 and, therefore, it will be only appropriate to consider WP(C) No. 1168/2016 at the first instance, as the outcome in the said case will largely determine the fate of WP(C) No. 2014/2016. 9. The case projected by the petitioners is that the Headmaster-cum-Member Secretary of Lalang Manipuri High School had published an advertisement on 18.12.2015 in a daily newspaper, namely, "Somohik Prasanga" inviting applications for the post of Junior Assistant (LDA) on or before 24.12.15. The date of written test was notified to be held on 26.12.2015 and the typewriting/computer typing test was notified to be held on 27.12.2015. Subsequently, on 24.01.2016, a Corrigendum was issued informing the candidates that the computer knowledge, typing test and oral test for the said post would be held on 29.01.2016 at Government Boys' High School from 10:00 AM onwards. The petitioner No. 1, who is an MA and the petitioner No. 2, who is Class-XII passed, having the qualifications as prescribed in the said advertisement, submitted their candidatures. 82 numbers of candidate applied and token numbers were given to each of the candidates. The petitioner No. 1 was allotted token No. 17 and the petitioner No. 2, token No. 55. The respondent No. 7 was allotted token No. 78. It is pleaded that the petitioners had appeared in the written test held on 28.01.2016 and the computer knowledge, typewriting and oral test held on 29.01.2016. The petitioner No. 1 was allotted token No. 17 and the petitioner No. 2, token No. 55. The respondent No. 7 was allotted token No. 78. It is pleaded that the petitioners had appeared in the written test held on 28.01.2016 and the computer knowledge, typewriting and oral test held on 29.01.2016. It is alleged that the respondent No. 6 is the own elder brother of the respondent No. 7, who is the first nominee and he being a Member of the Evaluation Committee, not only evaluated the answer scripts of his own brother but had also put his signature in the evaluation mark-sheet along with others on 28.01.2016. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 6 was assigned the duty of Invigilator-cum-Evaluator in a special room, i.e. room No. 2, where the respondent No. 7 was taking the written test. The respondent No. 6 was helping his own brother through unfair means with the consent of the Headmaster, who belonged to the same community. Such actions have vitiated the entire selection process. Though verbal complaints were lodged by the petitioners and other candidates on the day of written examination, no action was taken. In the oral test and interview, though the respondent No. 6 was not present, he could manage to influence the entire Selection Committee so as to give his brother highest marks amongst all the candidates in the typewriting test and oral test. 10. The respondent No. 4, i.e. the Headmaster-cum-Member Secretary of Lalang Manipuri High School had filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is stated by him that the respondent No. 6 was not a Member of the Evaluation Committee and, therefore, he was not involved in the process of evaluation/examination of answer scripts. The allegation of the respondent No. 6 being allotted Invigilation duty is also denied. The allegation that the respondent No. 7 was given special treatment by accommodating him in a special room, i.e. room No. 2, is also denied stating that the written test was conducted in 2(two) rooms of different blocks with allotment of seats from token Nos. 1 to 42 in room No. 1 and token Nos. 43 to 82 in room No. 2. The allegation of the respondent No. 6 helping his brother, i.e. the respondent No. 7, through unfair means is also denied. In substance, all the allegations made in the writ petition were denied. 1 to 42 in room No. 1 and token Nos. 43 to 82 in room No. 2. The allegation of the respondent No. 6 helping his brother, i.e. the respondent No. 7, through unfair means is also denied. In substance, all the allegations made in the writ petition were denied. The tests for computer knowledge and typewriting were done under the supervision of technical experts appointed by the higher authorities. The respondent No. 7 was issued with the appointment order on 30.01.2016 by the Inspector of Schools and he had joined on 01.02.2016 and the aforesaid fact was suppressed by the petitioners. 11. In the application for vacating the interim order dated 24.02.2016, which is registered as I.A. No. 1371/2016, it is stated that the respondent No. 7 having got highest marks in the selection process, appointment order was issued on 30.01.2016 and thereafter, he had joined on 01.02.2016. However, in view of the interim order dated 24.02.2016, the services of the respondent No. 7 was discontinued. By letter dated 19.03.2016, the respondent No. 7, who is the applicant in the aforesaid interlocutory application, had sought for information from the Headmaster as to whether his brother was a Member of the Selection Committee or in the Evaluation Committee and from the information furnished vide letter dated 24.03.2016, it was clear that the respondent No. 6 was neither included in the Selection Committee nor in the Evaluation Committee and that he was also not assigned any Invigilation duty in connection with the written test held on 28.01.2016. A meeting of the School Management & Development Committee (SMDC) was held on 04.01.2016 pursuant to the notice dated 02.01.2016 and in the said meeting dated 04.01.2016, the Selection Committee for the post in question was constituted, which shows that the respondent No. 6 was not a Member of the Selection Committee. The Headmaster had issued a notice dated 25.01.2016 requesting all teachers to attend the school on 28.01.2016 for fair and smooth conduct of the written examination. Based on the information supplied by the Headmaster-cum-Member Secretary, the respondent No. 7 had taken the same stand with regard to the allotment of room etc. as taken by the respondent No. 4 in the affidavit. Based on the information supplied by the Headmaster-cum-Member Secretary, the respondent No. 7 had taken the same stand with regard to the allotment of room etc. as taken by the respondent No. 4 in the affidavit. It is further stated that all teachers present were asked to put their signatures as witnesses in Annexure-P5 [Page-24 of the WP(C) No. 1168/2016], which also includes the signature of the respondent No. 6. It is pleaded that the name of the respondent No. 6 and the name of the Headmaster of School is one and the same. 12. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed to the I.A. No. 1371/2016, in Paragraph 6, it is stated as follows:- "6. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph 4 of the application, the answering deponent strongly denies the averments of the applicant that he was appointed on 30.01.2016 and if the same is done it was all manipulation and after thoughts. Further, it is also denied that the brother of the applicant was not included in the evaluation committee and invigilation duty then how he was permitted to help his brother in the examination hall and also put his signature in the evaluation sheet. It would be evident from the fact that when the answering deponent along with several other candidates went to submit a complaint on 30.1.2016 (Annexure-6 Colly to the writ petition) before the IS, CDC, Cachar District Circle, he was out of station (in Guwahati) and the compliant was received by one Sri Kutubuddin Laskar, LDA in the office of IS, CDC, Cachar acknowledging the same saying that as soon as the Inspector of School returns from Guwahati, he will bring the same to his notice. And the IS, CDC returned to Cachar only on 10.02.2016. On the very next day on 11.2.2016 the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 (H. Prem Kumar Singh) along with L Surendra (another candidate), Somerendra Singh, Nika had a verbal communication in his office chamber with regard to alleged selection of the applicant as 1st nominee. At that time another lady Headmaster of another School and one Atul Singh, district congress president were also present in his office chamber. At that time another lady Headmaster of another School and one Atul Singh, district congress president were also present in his office chamber. Following the said complaint, IS summoned the Headmaster of the concerned School on the same day and asked them to resolve the issue following which Headmaster arrived in the IS's office and listen to their complaint as to how the elder brother (M Biswajit Sinha the contractual teacher had help his younger brother (Applicant) in the written examination and also evaluated the answer script. After the said meeting, the IS asked the Headmaster concern to select another candidate within 24 hours or else he will not approve the selection of the applicant. As an abandoned cautioned the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 (Prem Kumar Singh) fortunately kept video recording of the verbal communication between them in his mobile handset, which he can produce before this Hon'ble Court at any time which will prove the manipulation of signing the appointment order on a backdate. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering deponent/petitioners after collecting all the necessary documents had filed the instant writ petition WP(C) 1168/2016 on 19.2.2016, listed on 22.2.2016 but did not reach and finally on 24.2.2016 on which date, the Hon'ble Court being prima facie satisfied had passed a reasoned interim order not to appoint anyone." 13. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1168/2016 has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 secured highest marks in the written test. Drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-P5 at Page 24 of the writ petition, he has submitted that there is no manner of doubt that the respondent No. 6 had put his signature in the evaluation sheet along with the other Examiners. Fact that he had signed the evaluation sheet demonstrates that the respondent No. 6 had performed the duties of evaluator. It is further contended that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the respondent No. 6 was not allotted Invigilation duty or he was not part of the evaluation process of answer scripts, his presence at the school on 28.01.2016 has clouded the very selection process and the selection of respondent No. 7 is vitiated by the doctrine of bias. Placing reliance on Paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-op-position filed in I.A. No. 1371/2016, he has strenuously argued that the order of appointment was issued back-dated. Though not part of the pleadings, it is submitted by him that Rule 4 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (for short, "the Rules"), as amended in 2012, does not provide for holding of oral test and yet oral test was conducted. The same has also vitiated the selection process as a foreign element in the selection process was introduced, he submits. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 10 (Para-3 & 12), J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 630 (Para-7) and a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Biren Das Vs. Tezpur University & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) GLT 661 : (2003) 3 GLR 174 (Para-8 & 12). 14. Mr. B. Saharia, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that the allegations made by the writ petitioners are entirely false and that the selection process was conducted in accordance with law. It is submitted that the respondent No. 6 was not at all a part of the selection process. It is submitted by him that only because the respondent No. 6 was asked to sign in Annex-ure-P5 after completion of the tabulation-sheet cannot lead to the conclusion that the selection of the respondent No. 7 was improper. 15. Though no affidavit is filed, Mr. Ghosh has also submitted that the selection process was fair. He has submitted that the petitioner No. 2, who had sworn the affidavit, had not visited the Office of the Inspector of Schools on 11.02.2016 and, therefore, he could not have asserted what transpired on 11.02.2016 as true to his knowledge. 16. Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that kite-flying allegations are made in respect of the selection process. He has assiduously argued that the materials on record will demonstrate without a shadow of doubt that the respondent No. 6 was not part of the selection process. 16. Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that kite-flying allegations are made in respect of the selection process. He has assiduously argued that the materials on record will demonstrate without a shadow of doubt that the respondent No. 6 was not part of the selection process. The selection of respondent No. 7 cannot be impeached only on the ground that the respondent No. 6 was also a signatory in Annexure-P5 [Page-24 of the WP(C) No. 1168/2016]. He has submitted that the plea that oral test is not prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules is utterly misconceived. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 18. Though not part of the pleadings, it will be appropriate to consider, at the outset, the submission of Mr. S.K. Das that oral test is not prescribed under Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. 19. Rule 4 of the 2003 Rules provides for method of recruitment. The same is quoted herein below for better appreciation: "4. Method of recruitment- (a)(i) Recruitment to the Cadre of Lower Division Assistant under rule 3(2)(a)(ii) and in Class IV posts under rule 3(2)(b) in the office of the High, Higher Secondary, Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be made directly by the Appointing Authority from the select list prepared by the School Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of rule 8(c) on the basis of test and interview; (ii) The Principal or the Head Master, as the case may be, where the vacancy exists or likely to exist within the next 3 months shall submit the proposal for filling up the said posts to the Inspector of Schools for approval. After obtaining approval of the Inspector of Schools the Principal or the Head Master shall inform the District Employment exchange about the vacancies with a request to send the list of candidates for selection to fill up the vacancies; (iii) After receipt of the list of candidates from District Employment Exchange the Principal or the Head-Master shall inform the School Selection Committee to hold the written test for selection of Lower Division Assistant alongwith typewriting test and written test along with viva-voce for Class IV posts in consultation with the Inspector of Schools concerned; (iv) Then the School Selection Committee shall prepare a select list of candidates containing double the number of vacancies and the Member-Secretary shall submit the select list to the Appointing Authority for appointment; The Appointing Authority, i.e. the Inspector of Schools concerned shall fill-up the vacancies in order of merit/preference from the select list and shall maintain the reservation provisions as per rule wherever applicable. (a) Academic qualification- The qualification for direct recruitment for the post of Lower Division Assistant in High, Higher Secondary, Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be Higher Secondary Examination passed or equivalent and having diploma in English and Assamese typewriting. The qualification for the post of Class IV employee shall be Class X standard. (b) Age-A candidate for the post of Lower Division Assistant and Class IV shall be within the age limit of 18 to 36 years as on the 1st day of January of the year of advertisement for direct recruitment." 20. Rule 8(c) is wrongly referred to in Rule 4(a)(i) above as there is no Rule 8(c) in the 2003 Rules. It should have been referred to as Rule 8(4) as the said Rule prescribes the constitution of School Selection Committee. Rule 8(4) is quoted herein below: "(4) The School Selection Committee for selection of Principal, Post Graduate Teacher/Graduate Teacher and Non-teaching Staff of School shall be as follows: Chairman : The President of Managing Committee; Member: (i) The Vice-Principal/a Post Graduate Teacher in case of Higher Secondary School or Assistant Headmaster/Senior most Graduate Teacher in case of High School; (ii) One parent to be nominated by the Managing Committee; Member Secretary: The Principal/Headmaster of the School. In addition to above, there shall be a Subject Expert in case of selection of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher, wherever necessary." 21. In addition to above, there shall be a Subject Expert in case of selection of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher, wherever necessary." 21. An Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 was issued as guidelines for recruitment of Junior Assistant. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the Junior Assistant is also known as Lower Division Assistant (LDA), which expression finds place in the 2003 Rules. A perusal of the said Office Memorandum goes to show that guidelines contained therein are issued for strict implementation of the 2003 Rules. 22. Rule 4(a)(i) of the 2003 Rules provides that recruitment to the cadre of LDA and in Class (IV) post in the office of High, Higher Secondary, Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be made directly by the appointing authority from the list prepared by the School Selection Committee constituted on the basis of test and interview. Thus, Rule 4(a)(i) is explicit that recruitment to the cadre of LDA is to be on the basis of test and interview. Rule 4(a)(iii) is not very happily worded. Rule 4(a)(iii) seeks to effectuate the provisions contained in Rule 4(a)(i) and (ii). The essence of Rule 4(a)(iii) is mat the Principal or the Headmaster shall have to request the School Selection Committee to hold test and interview. For LDA, apart from written test, type writing test is also contemplated. Merely because expression "viva-voce" does not find place against LDA in Rule 4(a)(iii) cannot lead to the conclusion that viva-voce is eliminated in the scheme of things for selection of LDA, as, if it were so held, the same will cause violence to the provision of Rule 4(a)(i). Both Rule 4(a)(i) and (iii) will have to be read together and harmonised. It will not be out of context to indicate that Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 also endorses holding of oral interview. In J & K Public Service Commission (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be made only in accordance with the Rules. The Rules having prescribed holding of viva-voce for the purpose of recruitment to the post of LDA, the submission advanced by Mr. S.K. Das to the contrary is found to be without any merit. 23. The Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 provides that written test shall be of 80 marks, typing test of 30 marks and oral interview of 10 marks. The Rules having prescribed holding of viva-voce for the purpose of recruitment to the post of LDA, the submission advanced by Mr. S.K. Das to the contrary is found to be without any merit. 23. The Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 provides that written test shall be of 80 marks, typing test of 30 marks and oral interview of 10 marks. With regard to typing test, it is indicated that out of 30 marks, 10 marks are to be assigned for English typing, 10 marks for computer knowledge and 10 marks for Assamese typing and that if Assamese typing test is not decided to be taken, then liberty is granted to the School Selection Committee to divide the 30 marks for computer knowledge and English typing. 24. Clause (6)(vii) of the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 provides that in no case, will the President/Member of the Selection Committee participate in the selection process, if any of his or her close relatives are involved as candidates in the process. Even if there was no such provision, a member of any Selection Committee is not expected to take part in a selection process if his or her close relatives are taking part in the selection process as the same may give rise to reasonable likelihood of bias, which may invalidate the entire selection process. 25. In the corrigendum issued, it was clearly mentioned that oral test will also be a part of the selection process. However, the petitioners had not challenged holding of oral test and had taken part in the selection process. 26. In Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , in Paragraphs 9 and 10, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance, both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1043 ), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to reassess the relevant merits of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee." 27. The ratio of Madan Lal (supra) is that the result of the interview on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who took a chance to get selected at the interview and who ultimately find himself to be unsuccessful. If a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, he cannot turn around and contend that process of selection was not fair and Selection Committee was not properly constituted. 28. In Sadananda Halo & Ors. Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619 , the Apex Court observed that unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the interview process, could not turn back and assail the selection process. In Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. Vs. Anil Joshi & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 , it has been observed by the Supreme Court that it is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. This Court in Dr. Biren Das (supra) had, despite the petitioner taking part in the selection process, accepted his plea on the ground that the composition of the Selection Committee was illegal and was in complete violation of the provisions of the statute. Same is not the case here. Having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court, as noted above, it is clear that as a general rule, a candidate who takes part in the selection process voluntarily even after being aware of any irregularity in the selection process including in the composition of the Selection Committee, cannot turn around and question the same subsequently after publication of the result. 29. 29. The initial advertisement notified that written test would be held on 26.12.2015 and the typing test would be held on 27.12.2015. It appears from the materials on record that the written test was finally held on 28.01.2016 and the typewriting/computer test/oral test were held on 29.1.2016. The corrigendum indicates that the written test for some of the schools including Lalang Manipuri High School was to be held on 05.01.2016 but the same could not be held. The parties have not brought on record the advertisements based on which dates of written test, interview etc. were deferred but that is not material in the facts and circumstances of the case. 30. The marks obtained by the petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 7 are as follows:- 31. It appears from Annexure-11 of the I.A. No. 1371/2016 that a notice was issued by the respondent No. 4 convening an urgent meeting of the SMDC on 04.01.2016 with the agenda of constitution of Selection Committee for recruitment of LDA. In the meeting held on 04.01.2016. School Selection Committee was constituted with Ibrahim Ali as President, the respondent No. 4 as Member Secretary, S. Manimohan Singha as Guardian's Representative and K. Senamon Singha as Teacher's Representative. Thus, the respondent No. 6, evidently, was not part of the School Selection Committee. The Head-master of the School had also issued a notice informing all teachers to attend the school on 28.01.2016 for fair and smooth conduct of LDA written examination. 32. Contrary to the plea taken by the writ petitioners that the respondent No. 7 was sitting in a special room, i.e. room No. 2, it will be evident from Annexure-14 (Page 39 of I.A. No. 1371/2016) that the token Nos. 1 to 42 were allotted room No. 1 and token Nos. 43 to 82 were allotted room No. 2. The names of the Invigilators are also indicated and against such names, the respective persons had also signed. The name of the respondent No. 6 does not figure in the list of Invigilators. The said document also listed the Exarniners/Evaluators/Corisultants/Supervisors and for the papers of Language, K. Lalita Singha was assigned the task of Examiner for Manipuri language and Md. The names of the Invigilators are also indicated and against such names, the respective persons had also signed. The name of the respondent No. 6 does not figure in the list of Invigilators. The said document also listed the Exarniners/Evaluators/Corisultants/Supervisors and for the papers of Language, K. Lalita Singha was assigned the task of Examiner for Manipuri language and Md. Jamal Uddin for Assamese language, for General English, N. Budhachanra Singha, for General knowledge, W. Lanngamsana Singha and for Mathematics, K. Sanaman Singha and K. Arun Singha were notified to be Examiners and they had signed against their respective names accepting the roles assigned to them. 33. The petitioners in the affidavit-in-opposition to I.A. No. 1371/2016 had admitted that there was a representative from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner even on the day of the written test. A perusal of the complaint dated 30.01.2016, shows that the petitioner No. 2, who was seated in the same room with the respondent No. 7, he having been allotted token number 55, was not a signatory. However, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 was a signatory to the said complaint. It is significant to note that on 29.01.2016, select list was already published. If such glaring irregularities had taken place, it is not understood why one should have waited till publication of the select list. Such complaint could have been lodged immediately. It is evident that even on 30.01.2016, the petitioner No. 2 had not protested about any alleged irregularities in the selection process. 34. Annexure-P5 [Page-24 of the WP(C) No. 1168/2016] is a continuation sheet from Page 22. Much emphasis is given by the learned counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate that the respondent No. 6 was part of the selection process on the basis of the said document. The document indicates the marks obtained in the written test in respect of 82 candidates without their names in the respective subjects. The document is dated 28.1.16. It appears that after the Examiners had evaluated the answer scripts, in the said list, marks obtained by the candidates in respect of each subjects were tabulated. It is not an evaluation of answer script by an Examiner but same is merely copying of the marks given by the Examiners in a consolidated form in respect of all the candidates. It appears that after the Examiners had evaluated the answer scripts, in the said list, marks obtained by the candidates in respect of each subjects were tabulated. It is not an evaluation of answer script by an Examiner but same is merely copying of the marks given by the Examiners in a consolidated form in respect of all the candidates. It also appears there from that although 82 candidates had submitted their candidatures, 37 candidates had taken the written test. It is undisputed that the signature of the respondent No. 6 appears at page No. 24 along with 6(six) other persons besides that of the President of the Managing Committee, Headmaster and the Supervising Officer. Even if the respondent No. 6 was associated with the tabulation of marks along with others, it cannot be construed that he was associated in the evaluation of the answer scripts. 35. Annexure-P7 of WP(C) No. 1168/2016, which is a result-sheet, contains the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, computer knowledge, computer typing and oral test as well as the total marks, signed by only the Members of the Selection Committee. 36. In Rattan Lal Sharma (supra), a Member of the Enquiry Committee in a disciplinary proceeding had himself deposed to establish a charge, namely, Charge No. 12, and then had again joined the Enquiry Committee and had submitted a report holding the delinquent guilty of charges including charge No. 12. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the Supreme Court had observed that finding of the Enquiry Committee was the product of bias and a prejudicial mind. It is also laid down that for appreciating a case of personal bias or bias to the subject matter, the test is whether there was a real likelihood of bias even though such bias has not in fact taken place. 37. The respondent No. 6 is not even a regular employee of the school and is only a contractual employee. He was neither a Member of the Selection Committee nor a part of the Evaluation Committee. He was also not an Invigilator and, therefore, the perceived apprehension of bias attributed to the respondent No. 6 is without any substance. At the time of computer test and oral interview, the respondent No. 6 was not even present. The selection process was conducted under the supervision of an Officer deputed by the District Administration. He was also not an Invigilator and, therefore, the perceived apprehension of bias attributed to the respondent No. 6 is without any substance. At the time of computer test and oral interview, the respondent No. 6 was not even present. The selection process was conducted under the supervision of an Officer deputed by the District Administration. Solely on the ground of signature of the respondent No. 6 appearing in the tabulation-sheet, which, in any view of the matter, was a ministerial act, the selection process cannot be indicted. 38. Though prayer is made in the writ petition for appointment of the writ petitioner No. 1, affidavits had been sworn only by the petitioner No. 2. The allegation that the appointment order dated 30.01.2016 is backdated and that the Inspector of Schools was not available on 30.01.2016 is sought to be established only on the basis of the statement of one Kutubuddin Laskar, an LDA, who is also not a party of this proceeding, that he would bring the complaint dated 30.01.2016 to the notice of the Inspector of Schools when he returns back from Guwahati. The statements made in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, even if it is taken on its face value, would go to show that when the complaint was given, the Inspector of Schools was out of station. It is not indicated when he had gone out of station or at what point of the day the petitioners had gone to submit the complaint. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Ghosh that no cognisance can be taken with regard to the statements indicating what transpired on 11.02.2016 as the petitioner No. 2, who had sworn the affidavit, admittedly, had not gone to the Office of the Inspector of Schools on that day. WP(C) No. 1168/2016 was filed on 19.02.2016 and it is not explained why such allegations as alleged in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit in I.A. No. 1371/2016 could not be made in the writ application. In any case, when the writ petition is taken up for disposal, date of issue of the appointment order will not be of much consequence though undoubtedly the same could have been a very relevant factor while considering a prayer for interim order. 39. In any case, when the writ petition is taken up for disposal, date of issue of the appointment order will not be of much consequence though undoubtedly the same could have been a very relevant factor while considering a prayer for interim order. 39. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference with the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 7 as LDA in Lalang Manipuri High School, Cachar. Consequently, WP(C) No. 1168/2016 is dismissed. 40. As a logical coronary, WP(C) No. 2014/2016 stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 02.03.2016 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Cachar District Circle [Annexure-7 of WP(C) No. 2014/2016] and the letter dated 07.03.2016 [Annexure-8 of WP (C) No. 2014/2016] issued by the Headmaster of Lalang Manipuri High School are set aside and the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 2014/2016, who is the respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 1168/2016, is allowed to work as LDA in Lalang Manipuri High School, Cachar. 41. I.A. No. 1371/2016 is disposed of in terms of the above determination. I.A. No. 1427/2016, which is an application for continuation of the interim order dated 24.2.16, also stands disposed of as infructuous with the disposal of the writ petition. No cost. Petition Dismissed.