JUDGMENT & ORDER : This writ petition has got its chequered history. The writ petitioner previously filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)192 of 2009 in this High Court challenging the appointment of the respondent No.7, Sri Tapan Kanti Das in the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Bengali) in the Golden Valley H.S.(+2 Stage) School, Rajbari, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, a Government aided school in pursuance to the advertisement under No. F.1(APPT)/GVHS/ 07/329 dated 28.11.2007. 2. By the judgment and order dated 08.05.2015, it was observed as under, while disposing the writ petition: “While selecting the respondent No.7, the selection committee has completely disregarded the method as prescribed by the said memorandum dated 02.01.2003. Had the procedure as prescribed been followed, the petitioner would have been in the top of the list, but for arbitrary action of the respondents No.1 to 6, the petitioner has suffered serious detriment in the public employment. It is not in dispute that by the advertisement dated 28.11.2007, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the Golden Valley H.S.(+2 stage) W.P.(C) No.192 of 2009 Page 6 of 14 [6] School invited applications from the eligible Indian citizens for filling up of a few posts of Post Graduate Teachers and Under Graduate Teachers including a post of Post Graduate teacher for Bengali, reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was found eligible and she was called to appear before the selection committee by the call letter dated 13.12.2007, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. After the interview was over when the petitioner learnt that she had not been selected, she gathered the information. From the communication dated 27.01.2009 made by the by the respondent No.2, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No.2 has disclosed that “all the selections of PGT posts(SC/ST) takes place as per seniority cum merit (higher qualification)/need.” The petitioner has also collected the tabulation sheet wherefrom it appears as under: Sl.No. Name & address of the candidate Date of Birth Name of Exam passed Board/ University Division % of marks SC/ST Academic performance Seniority Interview Total marks obtained 9 Sri Tapan Kanti Das, S/O- Lt. Nripendar Kr. Nripendar Kr. Das, P.O. Rajbari, Dharmanagar, District: North Tripura (Respondent No.7) 08.04.1976 M.A. in Bengali Tripura University II 48% SC 57 10 04 71 10 Smt. Chaitali Sarkar, D/O Sri Chanchal Sarkar, Jail Road, Dharmanagar, District–(N) Tripura (Petitioner) 23.11.1985 B.S.(Hons) in Bengali Tripura University II 46% SC 55 05 10 70 4. The petitioners challenge lies in assessing the comparative merit. According to her, the results of the other examinations have not at all been taken into consideration. Only the examination relating to the basic qualification had been taken for this purpose. According to the petitioner, she got total marks (70) correctly by the method prescribed by the memorandum dated 02.01.2001 but so far the respondent No.7 is concerned, he had been allotted more marks by violating the said method prescribed by the memorandum dated 02.01.2001. In terms of the said method, the respondent No.7 would have secured total marks of 68. The calculation in terms of the method is illustrated hereunder: (a) (i) Madhyamik For 2nd Division 55 marks (ii) H.S. For 3rd Division 45 marks (iii) B.A. (Hons) For 2nd Class Hons. 55 marks (iv) M.A. For 2nd Class 55 marks Total 210 marks * As per N.B.(I) average marks of his academic performance will be 52.2 rounded at 52 marks * As per N.B. (II) marks to be added 02 marks For having the post graduate degree 54 marks (b) For seniority 10 marks (c) For interview 04 marks Total 68 marks 5. As the petitioner secured 70 and the respondent No.7 secured 68 on observing the mandatory guidelines under no circumstances, the respondent No.7 could be appointed. The respondent No.1 without making any scrutiny of the process approved such selection by their communication dated 25.11.2008, Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has contended in their counter affidavit as under: 12. That in regard to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is strongly denied that the appointment of Sri Tapan Kanti Das is illegally, dated of birth of Tapan Kanti Das is 08.04.1976 date of birth of Chaitali Sarkar is 23.11.1985. So, Tapan Kanti Das secured 10 marks out of 15 and the petitioner secured 5 marks in seniority position Sri Tapan Kanti Das in M.A. passed candidate so he secured 57 marks out of 70 for academic performance. So, Tapan Kanti Das secured 10 marks out of 15 and the petitioner secured 5 marks in seniority position Sri Tapan Kanti Das in M.A. passed candidate so he secured 57 marks out of 70 for academic performance. The petitioner Smti Chaitali Sarkar, is B.A. passed with Honors. So, the interview board gives her 55 marks for academic performance out of 70 marks. So, there is no disputes found in selection of highly qualified Shri Tapan Kanti Das. 6. According to them, there is no illegality. By filing a separate joint counter affidavit, the respondents No.2 to 6 have contended in defence of their action as under: “But, it is clarified herein that the Government MEMO No. F.10 (2-41) DSE/2000 dated 02-01-2001 is not the Recruitment Rule rather is only the general administrative guidelines for recruitment of the staffs in Government Aided Schools having no statutory force of law. The aforesaid MEMO being the general administrative guidelines only the Members of the Selection Committee and/or Members of the Interview Board were at liberty to adopt its own procedure and/or to follow fully/partly the Government MEMO No. F.10 (2-41) DSE/2000 dated 02-01-2001 to select the best available Post Graduate Teacher for the Golden Valley H.S. (+2 Stage) School, Rajbari, Dharmanagar, North Tripura; who applied for it.” 7. The respondent No.7 has also filed the counter affidavit separately denying the allegations made by the petitioner but the respondent No.7 has contended that the memorandum dated 02.01.2001 is not the recruitment rules rather is only the general W.P.(C) No.192 of 2009 Page 9 of 14 [9] administrative guidelines for recruitment in the Government aided school having no statutory force of law. It has been further contended as under: “The aforesaid MEMO being the general administrative guidelines only the Members of the “Selection Committee and/or Members of the Interview Board were at liberty to adopt its own procedure and/or to follow fully/partly the Government MEMO No. F.10(2-41)DSE/2000 dated 02-01-2001 to select the best available Post Graduate Teacher for the Golden Valley H.S.(+2 Stage) School, Rajbari, Dharmanagar, North Tripura.” 3. Having appreciated the records, this court had finally inferred that: “16. The guidelines operate in the realm of the public policy for transparency and to curb subjectivity, arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power. Having appreciated the records, this court had finally inferred that: “16. The guidelines operate in the realm of the public policy for transparency and to curb subjectivity, arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power. When such public policy occupies the field, the selection committee departing therefrom has not only breached the propriety but also embarked on their own method. It is apparent that had the prescribed method been followed, the petitioner would occupy the top position in the selection of the post W.P.(C) No.192 of 2009 Page 13 of 14 [13] graduate teacher (SC) in Bengali. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner is justified and cannot be brushed aside casually. Even in the method prescribed by the said memorandum dated 02.01.2001 weightage has been given for obtaining the Master Degree with honours in the note (ii) at the fag end of the guidelines. Hence, it cannot be stated that the policy makers had failed to notice that aspect of the matter that someone having the Master Degree be given more weightage. The question is, therefore, is whether an espoused guideline can be departed by the selection committee in the manner as has been done in this case. The answer is no. Thus, this Court is of the view that a new selection committee would be formed by the respondents No.1 to 2 in the prescribed manner for assessing the comparative merit and seniority in terms of the guidelines provided in the memorandum dated 02.01.2001. Till then, the respondent No.7 would continue in the post, but if it is found that the petitioner has the better position following the said method then the respondents No.1 and 2 shall cancel the selection and appointment of the respondent No.7 forthwith and the petitioner be appointed in his place. In that event, the petitioner would be appointed from the date when the respondent No.7 was appointed but her pay would be fixed notionally till the date of appointment. The respondents No.1 and 2 are given liberty to consider any jeopardy and adopt the means appropriate to the emerging circumstances, but not in conflict with the fundamental direction given hereunder. 17. The respondents No.1 and 2 shall constitute the selection committee to comply this direction within a period of 3(three) months from the day of receipt of this order.” 4. 17. The respondents No.1 and 2 shall constitute the selection committee to comply this direction within a period of 3(three) months from the day of receipt of this order.” 4. The said judgment was challenged by the respondent No.7 before the division bench of this court by filing a writ appeal being W.A. No.13 of 2015. The said writ appeal dated 10.12.2015 was dismissed on observing as under: “18. If the guidelines are not followed then there may not be any proper evaluating of the result of the candidates in various examinations. In the present case, it is true that according to the school it has made selections on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations. That may mean there is uniformity in the process but we are clearly of the view that though there may be uniformity in the process of selection and there may not having been any bias for or against the writ petitioner, there has been violation of the salutary guidelines which amounts to unfairness in selections. Therefore, we feel that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in allowing the writ petition.” 5. According to the respondents, a fresh exercise in terms of the said judgment and order dated 08.05.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.182 of 2009 was undertaken and the Selection Committee had forwarded a reassessment report. The respondents No.1, 4, 5 and 6 by filing their reply has admitted that the guidelines was not observed on the earlier occasion. But they have made serious allegation against the Secretary, Managing Committee as the said Secretary, Managing Committee- “….communicated to the Director of Secondary Education with very bad intention and gave false information that he reassessed the seniority and merit position of the petitioner and respondent No.7 and it is discovered that Tapan Kanti Das obtained highest marks. And Chaitali Sarkar obtained lowest marks 63 only. Intention of Bivas Roy is very clear that he wanted to divert the observation of the Hon’ble Court into wrong direction. For such act of forgery Bivas Roy is liable to be punished by the Hon’ble Court.” Those respondents have also asserted that the respondent No.2, Secretary of the Managing Committee has acted in deviation of the guidelines. Intention of Bivas Roy is very clear that he wanted to divert the observation of the Hon’ble Court into wrong direction. For such act of forgery Bivas Roy is liable to be punished by the Hon’ble Court.” Those respondents have also asserted that the respondent No.2, Secretary of the Managing Committee has acted in deviation of the guidelines. They have further averred in their reply as under: “When further reassessment made and discovered that the petitioner secured highest marks and respondent No.7 secured lowest marks which was intentionally declassified by Sri Bivas Roy to give the service protection to Tapan Kanti Das and to deprive Smt Chaitali Sarkar. The School Managing Committee of Golden Valley H.S. School is submerged in corruption. Reassessment marks has shown below: Name of candidate Marks obtained for academic performance Marks obtained for seniority Marks obtained for interview performance Total marks obtained Remarks Smt Chaitali Sarkar 53.66 10 04 67.66 Lowest marks Sri Tapan Kanti Das 55 05 10 70 Highest marks Thereafter, an appeal has been made to pass an order by dissolving the Managing Committee and bringing the School under direct control of the School Education Department. In para-21 of the reply, those respondents have stated as under: “it is fact that criminal motive of respondent No.2 (Sri Bivas Roy) created obligation in making free and fair calculation of marks according to the memorandum dated 02.01.2001.” 6. The said reply has been affirmed by Smt. Uma Debbarma, an under Secretary of the Government of Tripura, School Education Department. These are very serious allegations. But we are also surprised by a memorandum by the Addl. Secretary & Director of School Education under No. F.15(4-13)-SE/GIA/2015/1957 dated 06.10.2016. For purpose of reference the said memorandum dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1, 4, 5 and 6 are reproduced hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION GRANT-IN-AID SECTION No. F.15(4-13)-SE/GIA/2015/1957 Dated, Agartala, the 06.10.2016 MEMO Ref: No.F.3/GVHS/2016DSE(GIA)/888 dated 01-03-2016 Sub: Reassessment of marks in Interview and academic performance for the post of PGT (Bengali). For purpose of reference the said memorandum dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1, 4, 5 and 6 are reproduced hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION GRANT-IN-AID SECTION No. F.15(4-13)-SE/GIA/2015/1957 Dated, Agartala, the 06.10.2016 MEMO Ref: No.F.3/GVHS/2016DSE(GIA)/888 dated 01-03-2016 Sub: Reassessment of marks in Interview and academic performance for the post of PGT (Bengali). In compliance of the judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura dated 08-05-2015 passed in Writ Petition(C) No. 192 of 2009 filed by Smt. Chaitali Sarkar, the Secretary, Managing Committee, Golden Valley H.S. English Medium School (Grant-in-Aided), Dharmanagar is hereby instructed to terminate Sri Tapan Kanti Das from service to the post of Post Graduate Teacher immediately and fresh offer of appointment may be issued to Smt Chaitali Sarkar, petitioner of the case, to the post of PGT(Bengali) on fixed pay for 5(five) years. An action taken report may be confirmed. Sd/Illegible (Dr. P.K. Goyal, I.A.S.) Addl. Secretary & Director of Secondary Education Tripura To The Secretary, School Managing Committee, Golden Valley H.S. English Medium School (Grant-in-Aided), P.O. Rajbari, Dharmanagar, Dist. North Tripura” 7. The respondents No.2 and 3 have filed a separate reply. In that reply what those respondents have stated is that the earlier Selection Committee took the interview of all the intending candidates and gave marks. Marks so awarded, is mentioned against each candidate but the remarks made by three members of the Interview Board which was convened on 20.12.2017 are contradictory to each other. For purpose of understanding what the respondents No.2 and 3 have been trying to mean and imply by ‘contradictory to each other’, a part of the paragraph-3 of their reply is extracted hereunder: “The marks given by Sri Sankar Sarkar, one of the Member of the Interview Board shows that Tapan Kanti Das scored marks -1 and against SI. No.8, marks is marked – 4, though the name is not mentioned and according to the note prepared by Sankar Sarkar, 12 persons appeared before the Interview Board, but according to the note dated 20/12/2017 prepared by Srimanta Roy who was one of the Member of the Interview Board indicates that Tapan Kanti Das scored mark – 1 and Chaitali Sarkar scored mark – 3 and the name of the candidate as mentioned in SI. No.9 & 10 was marked present lately and no marks given by him in favour of candidate No.9 & 10. But according to the Note prepared by Sankar Sarkar shows that the name of the candidate appearing in SI. No.9 & 10 got 2 (two) marks which is contradictory to the note prepared by Srimanta Roy wherein no marks are given against the candidate SI.No.9 & 10 and again according to one Barun Das, Chariman of the Interview Board also prepared a note and the note prepared by him also shows that the same is also contradictory with other members of the Interview Board and accordingly, the new selection committee did not take into consideration the marks given by earlier Interview Board/Selection Committee on 20/12/2017.” 8. The respondents No.2 & 3 made a communication under No.F.3/GVHS/2016/DSE/888 dated 01.03.2016 communicating the marks to the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura. The said marks according to the respondents No.2 and 3 are the outcome of the assessment made by the Selection Committee on 29.02.2016 on the basis of merit-cum-seniority vide the memorandum No.F.15(4-13)-SE/GIA/2015/2040/4227 dated 28.01.2016. For purpose of reference, the marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent No.7 as shown in the said communication dated 01.03.2016 are extracted hereunder: “1. SRI. TAPAN KANTI DAS: Madhyamik Examination 2nd Division 45.44% 55 Marks H.S.(+2 stage) Examination 3rd Division 39.80% 45 Marks B.A.(Hons. in Bengali) 2nd Class 44.00% 55 Marks Average of 3 Nos. Public Examination 51.66 Marks +2 Marks Extra Marks for M.A. in Bengali 53.66 Marks 10 Marks Seniority GRAND TOTAL 63.66 Marks Thus Sri Tapan Kanti Das secures 53.66 marks in average of 70 and 10 marks in respect of Seniority thereby totaling 63.66 Marks. 2. SMT CHAITALI SARKAR: Madhyamik Examination 2nd Division 59.25% 55 Marks H.S.(+2 stage) Examination 2nd Division 59.30% 55 Marks B.A. (Hons. in Bengali) 2nd Class 46.37% 55 Marks Average of 3 Nos. Public Examination 55.00 Marks Seniority 5 Marks GRAND TOTAL 60.00 Marks” 9. The Selection Committee was constituted by the Managing Committee with the following members: 1. Sri Barun Das, District Education Officer (I/C) Chairman 2. Sri Bivas Roy, Secretary, Managing Committee Member 3. Sri Harkumar Pal, Extension Officer, Tribal Welfare Member 4. Sri. Sasanka Sekhar Das, Headmaster, B.B. Institution Member (subject Expert) 10. In the communication there is no mention whether there was a fresh interview or not. Sri Barun Das, District Education Officer (I/C) Chairman 2. Sri Bivas Roy, Secretary, Managing Committee Member 3. Sri Harkumar Pal, Extension Officer, Tribal Welfare Member 4. Sri. Sasanka Sekhar Das, Headmaster, B.B. Institution Member (subject Expert) 10. In the communication there is no mention whether there was a fresh interview or not. But the petitioner by filing the rejoinder has contended that mark as assessed on 07.02.2016 shows that respondent No.7, Sri Tapan Kanti Das has obtained total 67.66 out of 100 while the petitioner obtained 70 out of 100 including the marks obtained in the interview. The petitioner has asserted specifically as under: “It has also been stated that the Selection Committee wrongly awarded 71 marks to the respondent No.7 instead of 67.66 marks for academic purpose and seniority position. It has also been stated that the assessment made on 07.02.2016 found the petitioner secured highest mark 70 and lowest mark 63.77 secured by respondent No.7. It has also been stated in Para-19 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition by the State Respondents that from the seniority and merit position of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent No.7, it is discovered that the respondent No.7 Shri Tapan Kanti Das has been illegally awarded highest marks while I have been awarded lowest mark 63 which is per se illegal. The said marking of the interview of marks has been made illegally without taking any consideration of seniority.” The petitioner has relied on the record of W.P.(C) No.192 of 2009 to show the mark she secured in the interview. 11. The petitioner by filing the writ petition has asserted that the prescribed guidelines was not followed while communicating the comparative merit to the Director of School Education. The petitioner has categorically stated that no mark has been awarded to the petitioner for seniority. The petitioner has made a further allegation against the respondent No.2. 12. The respondent No.2, the Secretary of the School Managing Committee has produced the record of the Selection Committee for inspection by this court. From the record particularly from the tabulation sheet prepared by the Selection Committee what transpires is as follows: ASSESSMENT SHEET FOR THE POST OF PG TEACHER IN BENGALI (RESERVE FOR SC) MERIT CUM SENIORITY BASIS Sl. 12. The respondent No.2, the Secretary of the School Managing Committee has produced the record of the Selection Committee for inspection by this court. From the record particularly from the tabulation sheet prepared by the Selection Committee what transpires is as follows: ASSESSMENT SHEET FOR THE POST OF PG TEACHER IN BENGALI (RESERVE FOR SC) MERIT CUM SENIORITY BASIS Sl. No. Name and address of the candidate Date of birth Name of Exam passed Board/University Division % of marks SC Criteria Academic Performance Seniority Total Marks obtained 70 15 85 1 TAPAN KANTI DAS P.O. Rajbari, Dharmanagar North Tripura 8.4.1976 Madhyamik Pariksha H.S.(+2) Stage Exam B.A Hons In Bengali T.B.S.E. A.H.S.E.C. Tripura University 2nd 3rd 2nd Class 45.44 39.80 44.00 SC 51.66 10 63.66 M.A. in Bengali Tripura University 2nd Class 48.00 +2(for M.A) 53.66 2. CHAITALI SARKAR Jail Road, Dharmanagar North Tripura 23.11.1995 Madhyamik Pariksha H.S.(+2) Stage Exam B.A Hons In Bengali T.B.S.E. T.B.S.E. Tripura University 2nd 2ND 2nd Class 59.25 59.30 46.37 SC 55 5 60 13. It is apparent that no mark for interview has been added while making the communication dated 01.03.2016. It appears from the individual score sheet of the members of the Interview Board that the respondent No.7 got [2+1+1]4 and the petitioner got [3+4+3]10. These marks of the interview as awarded by the members of the Interview Board is out of 15. Therefore, the final score would be as under: Petitioner, in terms of the tabulation and interview got total marks of 70(60+10) and the respondent No.7 has got 67.66 (63.66+4). Thus, the petitioner secured the top position in the comparative merit list. As such the memorandum dated 06.10.2016 holds good. 14. In compliance to the said memorandum dated 06.10.2016 the School Managing Committee, the respondent No.2 shall terminate Sri Tapan Kanti Das, the respondent No.7 from service from the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Bengali) forthwith and the offer of appointment shall be issued to Smt. Chaitali Sarkar, the writ petitioner for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Bengali) on a fixed pay basis for 5(five) years within a period of 1(one) month from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of the judgment to the respondent No.2, subject to further condition that on expiry of 5(five) years the petitioner shall be entitled to the regular scale. The petitioner shall be treated to have been appointed on regular basis on the day when she will be appointed in to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Bengali) by virtue of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed before parting with the records. Before parting, it is made clear that the respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to take action against the Managing Committee of the said school in terms of the Rule 10 of the Grant-in-Aid Rules after following the due process. There shall be no order as to costs.