JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Thakuria, learned Standing Counsel for Secondary Education Department and Mr. K.K. Upadhyay, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6 being the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur and the Chairman of the Selection Committee. 2. The petitioner who has the qualification of having passed the B.A Examination, had responded to an advertisement dated 02.07.2010 issued by the Headmistress/Secretary of Rangajan High School for the post of Assistant Teacher in English and other subjects on contractual basis. The said advertisement was made pursuant to the employment notice dated 28.06.2010. Upon due selection being made, the petitioner was selected for the subject English in the Rangajan High School. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed by the contractual engagement letter dated 27.08.2010 and the petitioner had also entered the required agreement with the Managing Committee of the school. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent authorities to go for a re-advertisement of the post, in which the petitioner was appointed, as it appeared in a news item published in the local daily “The Pratidin” on 19.09.2010. As per the news item, prior to the appointment of the contractual teachers, some irregularities had taken place in the selection, for which the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur had ordered an enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner had directed that the interview be held again against 10(ten) numbers of schools of Lakhimpur, including the Rangajan High School, in which the petitioner was appointed. It had also been stated that the Deputy Commissioner had constituted a new Committee for taking the interview for appointment on contractual basis of the teachers in the said schools. 4. In the affidavit in opposition filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur dated 28.03.2011, a letter dated 30.08.2010 from the Headmistress of Rangajan High School addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur had been annexed. As per the said letter, the Headmistress informed the Deputy Commissioner that some local people are disturbing and protesting against the appointment of the petitioner and accordingly, a request was made to take necessary action. As per the said letter, the Headmistress informed the Deputy Commissioner that some local people are disturbing and protesting against the appointment of the petitioner and accordingly, a request was made to take necessary action. Another letter dated 13.09.2010 of the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur had also been annexed, which contains the subject regarding submission of Enquiry Report as regards appointment made in Rangajan High School. As per the enquiry report, the appointment and selection of the petitioner was found to have been a valid appointment and selection in all respect, but in Clause-8 of the said letter, it had been stated that the local people of the area have shown their resentment on the result and were of the view that a local candidate from some other community ought to have been appointed. In clause-7 of the said letter, it had been stated that although three candidates had been selected for different subjects, all the candidates happened to be from one single community, being the Nepali community. 5. Accordingly, it is to be construed that as per the enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner had taken the decision to re-advertise only for the reason that pursuant to the selection process, three candidates belonging to the Nepali community had been appointed and selected. Apart from the said, no other reason had been stated in the letter dated 13.09.2010. 6. In the considered view of this Court, the said reason of the respondent authorities to do away with the appointment of the petitioner and to re-advertise the post is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which clearly provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State, and that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. 7. The sole reason, that the appointment of the petitioner is sought to be done away with and post be re-advertised only because three candidates from the Nepali community had been selected, would, in the considered view of this Court, be a violation of the Article 16 of the Constitution of India and would amount to a discrimination on the basis of race/community. 8. In such view of the matter, the offending decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur to re-advertise and hold a fresh interview is found to be in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly it is directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur shall not proceed ahead with the proposed re-advertisement and re-selection. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.