JUDGMENT : Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4, Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. H. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. Issue involved herein is with regard to selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 to the post of regular Principal of Karara Higher Secondary School, District - Kamrup, a provincialised Higher Secondary School of the State, in pursuance of the advertisement made in June 2016. 3. The petitioner is a Master of Science in Botany from Gauhati University, and has also obtained B.Ed. Degree from the same University. On being selected, the Director of Secondary Education (DSE), Assam vide order dated 27.03.1985 appointed him as a Subject Teacher in Botany at Lakhipur Higher Secondary School, District - Goalpara, a provincialised Higher Secondary School of the State. Later by order dated 22.08.1986, the petitioner was transferred to Karara Higher Secondary School, District - Kamrup, another provincialised Higher Secondary School of the State and since then he is serving in the said School as Subject Teacher in Botany. He also served as in-charge Principal of said Karara H.S. School since August 2006 till the regular Principal was appointed in the said School. 4. The respondent No. 6 is also Master of Science in Zoology from Gauhati University and obtained B.Ed. Degree from same University. On being selected the DSE, Assam vide order dated 22.02.1985 appointed him as a Subject Teacher in Zoology at Makhibaha Higher Secondary School, District - Nalbari, a provincialised Higher Secondary School of the State, pursuant to which he joined the said school on 01.03.1985. Vide order dated 25.06.1985 the DSE, Assam transferred the Respondent No. 6 to said Karara Higher Secondary School and since then he is serving in the said Karara H.S. School. 5. Pursuant to the letter of the DSE, Assam dated 17.06.2015, the Member Secretary of the School Management and Development Committee (SMDC) of said Karara H.S. School on 19.06.2016 issued an advertisement seeking applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of the post of regular Principal of said HS school, pursuant to which several candidates applied, including the petitioner and the respondent No. 6. In the selection to the aforesaid advertised post, held on 05.11.2016, seven candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 appeared before the School Selection Committee (SSC) of Karara H.S. School. 6. On the basis of said selection held on 05.11.2016, the SSC of said Karara H.S. School on 25.11.2016 prepared a panel containing the names of first three selected candidates, that includes the respondent No. 6 at Srl. No. 1, followed by the petitioner and thereafter by one Ramen Choudhury and forwarded the same to the Member Secretary of the State Selection Board, i.e. the DSE, Assam, through the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup (R). 7. After scrutinizing the said selection, the State Selection Board on 24.02.2017 forwarded the name of the respondent No. 6, being the 1st empanelled candidate, to the Government for its approval and on 14.03.2017 the Government approved the name of the respondent No. 6 for the post of regular Principal of said HS School. Pursuant to the same, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by its order dated 02.05.2017 appointed the respondent No. 6 as the regular Principal of the said Karara Higher Secondary School and the respondent No. 6 joined the said post on 03.05.2017. 8. Being aggrieved with the above, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as the regular Principal of said Karara Higher Secondary School, praying for setting aside and quash the same, directing the official respondents to place him at Serial No. 1 and to appoint him as the regular Principal of said Karara HS School. The Court while issuing notice to the respondents in the present proceeding on 05.05.2017, made it clear that the appointment of the respondent No. 6 shall abide by the result of this writ petition and the same is still in force. 9. To regulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of the persons appointed to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service, the State Government in the Secondary Education Department in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, formulated the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 that came in to force w.e.f. 12.08.2003. Rule 12 of said 2003 Rules stipulates “the Recruitment of Principal in the Higher Secondary and Higher Secondary & Multipurpose School and qualification thereof” whereas Rule 13 of said 2003 Rules provides for “the Procedure of selection of Principals” in such provincialised Higher Secondary Schools of the State. 10. The State Government in the Secondary Education Department vide No. ASE 82/2014/Pt/6 dated 06.06.2014 issued an Office Memorandum laying down the “Guidelines for selection of Principals in Provincialised Higher Secondary School” incorporating the provisions of Rules 12 and 13 of said 2003 Rules and also the provisions of Rules 8 (4) and 16 of said 2003 Rules pertaining to constitution of School Selection Committee and State Selection Board respectively. 11. Rule 12(v) as well Rules 13(2) and 13(4) of said 2003 Rules with regard to the Recruitment of Principal in the Higher Secondary and Higher Secondary & Multipurpose School and the Procedure for selection of Principals in such provincialised Higher Secondary Schools states about leadership skills, administrative ability, integrity and commanding personality of the concerned candidate for the said post. However, the said 2003 Rules is silent about the criteria to determine such administrative ability, integrity and commanding personality of the concerned candidate. As such the Director of Secondary Education, Assam vide No. GB-EST/Guideline/Principal/3/2013/117 dated 23.06.2016 issued an order laying down the criteria and directed the School Selection Committee to award maximum of 5 (five) marks each under the three Heads of ‘Leadership Skills’, ‘Administrative Ability’ and ‘Integrity’, in total 15 (fifteen) marks to each of the candidate interviewed by it for the said post. 12. 12. All the respondents filed their affidavits in the matter and contended that considering the said Guideline of the DSE, Assam dated 23.06.2016 and on the basis of his performance, ACR, other relevant testimonials and credentials, the School Selection Committee in the interview held on 05.11.2016 awarded 4 (four) marks each in the three Headings under ‘Leadership Skills’, ‘Administrative Ability’ and ‘Integrity’ to the respondent No. 6 and accordingly he obtained 12 (twelve) (4 × 3 = 12) marks in his interview, whereas, on similar considerations, the said Selection Committee in that interview awarded 4 (four) marks each in two headings under ‘Leadership Skills’ and ‘Integrity’ and 3.75 (three point seven five) marks under the heading ‘Administrative Ability’ to the petitioner, thereby he obtained 11.75 (eleven point seven five) (4 + 4 + 3.75 = 11.75) marks in it. The respondents also contended that the third candidate, namely, Ramen Choudhury, secured 11 (eleven) marks in the said interview [4 marks under ‘Leadership Skills’ + 2 marks under ‘Administrative Ability’ and 5 marks under ‘Integrity’ (4+2+5 = 11)]. 13. The DSE, Assam respondent No. 3 in its affidavit stated that the School Selection Committee of said Karara H.S. School was constituted in terms of the Government guidelines and the selection process to the post of Principal in that school was held in a fair and transparent manner and upon scrutinizing the selection process, as no irregularity was found, therefore proceeded to appoint the respondent No. 6 as the Principal of the said School, after obtaining Government approval and that as the Selection Committee did not recommend the Petitioner at serial No. 1 during the said selection, he could not be appointed as Principal of the said School. 14. The respondent No. 6 submits that he has been selected by the Selection Committee in a selection process where the petitioner also participated without any objection and on comparison of the academic performance between him and the petitioner would go to show that the respondent No. 6 is better placed and has a better academic career than the petitioner. He also submitted that pursuant to the appointment order dated 02.05.2017 issued by the DSE, Assam he has joined as the regular Principal of Karara HS School on 03.05.2017 and since then he is discharging his duties in the said capacity. 15. He also submitted that pursuant to the appointment order dated 02.05.2017 issued by the DSE, Assam he has joined as the regular Principal of Karara HS School on 03.05.2017 and since then he is discharging his duties in the said capacity. 15. The said respondent No. 6 further submitted that he has been awarded the certificate of excellence in the year 2016 whereas the petitioner did not receive any such awards. 16. The respondent No. 5 the School Selection Committee of Karara HS School submits that advertisement to the post of regular Principal in the said HS School was published in newspapers on 19.06.2016 and the selection was held on 05.11.2016. Such selection to the post of regular Principal in the said HS School was made following the provisions of Rules 12 and 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 and the Order of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam dated 23.06.2016 regarding allotment of marks under the Heads of ‘Leadership Skills’, ‘Administrative Ability’ and ‘Integrity’. The said respondent No. 5 also stated that as per the records available before the said School Selection Committee and the mode and manner of awarding marks as per the guidelines and the order of the DSE, Assam, noted above, the petitioner secured a total of 11.75 marks in the interview whereas the respondent No. 6 secured 12 marks in the same. The respondent No. 5 further stated that the respondent No. 6 has also received a certificate as a Teacher of Excellence from the Government of Assam whereas petitioner did not produce any documents regarding his personal achievement of awards/innovative work or honour before the said School Selection Committee. 17. Both the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 6 annexed the Certificate of Excellence issued by the Government of Assam to the respondent No. 6 as a Teacher of Excellence in their affidavits. 18. 17. Both the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 6 annexed the Certificate of Excellence issued by the Government of Assam to the respondent No. 6 as a Teacher of Excellence in their affidavits. 18. Though the petitioner submitted that he is entitled for 5 marks each under the heading of leadership skills and integrity as the result of Class X and Class XII pass final examination of his School for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were exceptionally outstanding, he participated in various trainings on School Leadership Development for all the heads of the institutions organized by National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development, UNESCO, UNICEF and Rastriya Madhayamik Siksha Abhiyan, Assam and that during his entire service tenure he neither had any adverse remarks nor any proceeding was drawn against him. Petitioner submitted that the School Selection Committee did not consider these aspects of the matter and his testimonials while awarding him marks under the Heading of ‘Leadership Skills’, ‘Administrative Ability’ and ‘Integrity’, in terms of the order of the DSE, Assam dated 23.06.2016. 19. By filing an additional affidavit in this writ petition on 01.11.2018, the petitioner placed before the Court the advertisement dated 19.06.2016 for the post of regular Principal in said Karara HS School and that pursuant to the same the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and others participated in the selection process for which the School Selection Committee conducted the selection on 05.11.2016. From the said advertisement dated 19.06.2016, The petitioner also brought to the notice of the Court that in the said advertisement dated 19.06.2016 it was specified that “application with necessary documents should reach the office of the Principal, Karara HS School, Karara, Kamrup on or before 25.06.2016” and that the said period was not extended. The respondents did not deny the same. From the Certificate of Excellence of the Government of Assam issued to the respondent No. 6, annexed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in their respective affidavits, the petitioner showed that the same was of 04.09.2016, which is much after 25.06.2016, the last date to receive applications with necessary documents from the intending candidates to the said post of regular Principal in Karara HS School, as advertised on 19.06.2016. 5 and 6 in their respective affidavits, the petitioner showed that the same was of 04.09.2016, which is much after 25.06.2016, the last date to receive applications with necessary documents from the intending candidates to the said post of regular Principal in Karara HS School, as advertised on 19.06.2016. Petitioner has also placed before the Court that the respondent School Selection Committee had accepted the said Certificate of Excellence dated 04.09.2016 issued in favour of respondent No. 6 and awarded him marks for the same under the Heading of ‘Administrative Ability’, which according to the petitioner should not have been considered by it as the same was obtained by the respondent No. 6, after the last date of submission of application for the said post, i.e. 25.06.2016. 20. The respondents in the Secondary Education Department as well as the School Selection Committee and the respondent No. 6 did not deny to this aspect of the matter placed by the petitioner. The respondents also did not contradict that the respondent No. 6 except his mark sheets of M.Sc. (Final) Zoology Examination of 1982 as well as B.Ed. Examination of 1989, both issued by the Gauhati University and the Certificate of Excellence dated 04.09.2016 of the Government of Assam issued in his name, annexed with his affidavit in this matter, did not place his any other credentials before the School Selection Committee. Rather the other respondents supported the said Certificate of Excellence dated 04.09.2016 of the respondent No. 6. 21. The respondent No. 5 School Selection Committee in its affidavit as noted above clearly stated that the petitioner did not produce any documents regarding his personal achievement of awards/innovative work or honour before it, whereas the respondent No. 6 received the said Certificate of Excellence as a Teacher from the Government of Assam and that the School Selection Committee awarded marks as per the guidelines and the order of the DSE, Assam, dated 23.06.2016 under the Heads of ‘Leadership Skills’, ‘Administrative Ability’ and ‘Integrity’ on the basis of the records available before it. The respondent No. 5, School Selection Committee did not controvert with the submission of petitioner that it considered the said Certificate of Excellence dated 04.09.2016 of the respondent No. 6 during the selection and awarded marks to him under the Heading ‘Administrative Ability’ on the basis of said Certificate. 22. The respondent No. 5, School Selection Committee did not controvert with the submission of petitioner that it considered the said Certificate of Excellence dated 04.09.2016 of the respondent No. 6 during the selection and awarded marks to him under the Heading ‘Administrative Ability’ on the basis of said Certificate. 22. The respondent No. 6 in his affidavit also stated that he has been awarded a Certificate of Excellence on 04.09.2016 by the Government of Assam for his significant contribution, dedication and outstanding efforts whereas the petitioner did not receive any such awards of excellence. 23. Though the Director of Secondary Education, Assam in its affidavit stated that it scrutinized the records of selection pertaining to said advertised post of Principal in Karara HS School that was forwarded by the concerned School Selection Committee and it did not find any irregularity in the said selection process and rather found that it was held in a fair and transparent manner and therefore, recommended the name of the respondent No. 6 being the recommended candidate at Srl. No. 1 to the post of Principal in said Karara HS School to the Government and it was duly approved by the State Government in the Secondary Education Department on 14.03.2017. The said Director also stated as the Selection Committee did not recommend the petitioner at Srl. No. 1 and recommended him at Srl No. 2, the said Directorate could not appoint the petitioner as Principal of the said HS School. 24. As per the provisions of Rule 13 (4) of the said 2003 Statutory Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State Government in the Secondary Education Department, after such recommendation of panel of names so prepared and recommended by the State Selection Board is required to cause verification as may be deemed necessary and only thereafter should accord the approval for appointment to the post of regular Principal in the concerned provincialised HS School. 25. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 429 have held that- It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date. 26. 26. In the case of Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that- The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. 27. In the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that- It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. 27. In the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that- It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to rules. Since the appellant had not possessed the Physical Training Instructor qualifications as on that date, her illegal consideration by the Board and recommendation for appointment and the appointment made in furtherance thereof are illegal. 28. Another three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 have held that- The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. 29. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. 29. Considering the view taken and the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases, with regard to cut off date, when not prescribed, the principle to be adopted and observed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 519 have held that - (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and (ii) if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (iii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. 30. None of the respondents denied of considering the Certificate of Excellence of the Government of Assam dated 04.09.2016 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 during the said selection to the post of regular Principal in Karara HS School held on 05.11.2016 and with regard to awarding of marks to the said respondent No. 6 on the basis of his said Certificate dated 04.09.2016 under the Heading of ‘Administrative Ability’ pertaining to the selection of the respondent No. 6 at Srl. No. 1 by the School Selection Committee, that was accepted, recommended by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam as well as the State Selection Board and approved by the Government in the Secondary Education Department, though the said Certificate dated 04.09.2016 was issued after 25.06.2016, the last date of submission of application with necessary documents to the post of Principal in Karara HS School as advertised on 19.06.2016. 31. 31. From the aforesaid acts, it is apparent that the State Selection Board as well as the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and the concerned authorities in the Secondary Education Department of the State did not scrutinize the said selection of the respondent No. 6 held on 05.11.2016 in proper perspective and as required under the provisions of said 2003 Rules. 32. For the reasons above, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as the Principal of Karara Higher Secondary School, District-Kamrup, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.06.2016, being bad in law is hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently the approval of the State Government in the Secondary Education Department accorded vide letter No. ASE.82/2014/PT-II/130 dated 14.03.2017 with regard to the respondent No. 6 as well as the Order of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam under No. GB-EST/Principal Aptt/13/2017/12 dated 02.03.2017 appointing said respondent No. 6 as Principal of Karara Higher Secondary School, District-Kamrup (R) as its regular Principal are set aside and quashed. 33. It is already seen that the petitioner obtained 11.75 marks during the said selection to the regular post of Principal of Karara Higher Secondary School, District-Kamrup (R) that was held on 05.11.2016 pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.06.2016, and he was placed at merit position No. 2 in the panel made by the School Selection Committee of said Karara HS School, which has not been objected by anyone and rather admitted by all the respondents. The DSE, Assam who is also the Member Secretary of the State Selection Board in his affidavit stated that the selection process of Principal in said Karara HS School was held in a fair and transparent manner and that upon scrutinizing the selection records it did not find any irregularity in the selection process and since School Selection Committee did not recommend the petitioner at Srl. No. 1, he could not be appointed as Principal of the said HS School. Since the selection of the respondent No. 6, who was placed at Srl. No. 1 by the School Selection Committee being found to be illegal and his selection and appointed as Principal of said HS School has now been set aside and quashed the respondents in the Secondary Education Department is directed to appoint the petitioner as Principal of said Karara Higher Secondary School, Karara, District-Kamrup (R) forthwith. 34. No. 1 by the School Selection Committee being found to be illegal and his selection and appointed as Principal of said HS School has now been set aside and quashed the respondents in the Secondary Education Department is directed to appoint the petitioner as Principal of said Karara Higher Secondary School, Karara, District-Kamrup (R) forthwith. 34. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed.