JUDGMENT : Heard the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 5 to 717 in W.P.(C) 3739/2020. 2. Based upon common facts, similar issues arise for determination in these series of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the instance of the learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for all the parties, these matters were heard in the admission stage. These writ petitions have broadly been segregated under four following categories, viz., i. One set of writ petitions would consist of W.P.(C) 4455/2020, where, amongst others, prayer is that only those who have passed Teacher Eligibility Test (TET for short) in the examination held on 19.01.2020 without grace marks should be allowed to participate in recruitment process to the post of teacher. In this category W.P.(C) nos. 3739/2020, 3881/2020, 4038/2020, 4065/2020, 4109/2020, 4189/2020, 4192/2020, 4198/2020, 4303/2020, 4361/2020, 4377/2020 and 978/2021 have been included because in all these cases the award of grace marks has been challenged with prayer for giving the petitioners preference over all those who were awarded grace marks. In some of these writ petitions, reference has been made to the relevant clause in the educational advertisement for holding Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) wherein it was provided that candidates would have to get the qualifying marks in both papers and that maximum twice the number of vacancies can be declared to be qualified; ii. The second set of writ petition would include W.P.(C) 3882/2020, where prayer is to award grace marks as the petitioners have got the aggregate qualifying marks in both papers, but have not got qualifying marks in one paper; iii. The third set of writ petition would include W.P.(C) 3435/2020, where the candidates would not qualify despite award of 5 grace marks and therefore, prayer is to the effect that they be given further grace marks and declared to be qualified. However, the case of the petitioners is that they had secured 60% in the aggregate, yet as they had not secured 60% in one part out of two parts, the petitioners were declared unsuccessful in the TET exams. iv. However, the case of the petitioners is that they had secured 60% in the aggregate, yet as they had not secured 60% in one part out of two parts, the petitioners were declared unsuccessful in the TET exams. iv. The fourth set of writ petitions would include W.P.(C) 3633/2020, where the petitioner is also seeking award of grace marks and W.P.(C) 3703/2020 is also included herein, as it has been alleged that they were wrongly denied marks for correct answers given and therefore, prayers have been made for re-evaluation. Case of the petitioners: 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners is that they are all graduates in different stream and that except for having TET qualification then, they otherwise have all the requisite qualification for being selected and appointed as teacher in the High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools in the State. On 13.11.2019, the Member Secretary, TET Empowered Committee had issued an advertisement bearing no. RMSA/Special TET/ 842/2017/172 in online portal inviting applications for medium wise (Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Manipuri and Hindi medium) TET for Secondary level to be conducted by the Government of Assam. The pre-requisite for being eligible for appearing in TET was that the intending candidate must have Graduate/ Post Graduate Degree from a recognized University with 50% marks and a Degree of B.Ed. from National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE for short). It was specifically mentioned therein that the candidates would have to qualify in both the parts separately to qualify in the examination. Moreover, for general category candidates, 60% marks was required to be obtained in each part, i.e. Part-I and Part-II of the question booklet and in case of candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/MOBC/PWD category, relaxation of 5% marks was provided for, i.e. 55% marks was to be obtained in each of the two parts separately. Thereafter, the TET examination was held on 19.01.2020 and the result was declared on 04.03.2020. 4. After the result of the TET examination was declared on 04.03.2020, by way of an advertisement dated 15.05.2020, extension of time was granted to the candidates due to lockdown of Covid-19 pandemic, thereby allowing the candidates time to submit re-evaluation application through postal mode till 26.05.2020. The petitioners project that the notice dated 06.03.2020, which was referred to in the notice dated 15.05.2020 could not be obtained despite effort of the petitioners. The petitioners project that the notice dated 06.03.2020, which was referred to in the notice dated 15.05.2020 could not be obtained despite effort of the petitioners. It is projected that on 04.03.2020, when the result was declared, on merit 7417 candidates were declared passed out. However, subsequently in the name of re-evaluation, grace marks were awarded to a large number of candidates, which had resulted in 4615 more candidates declared as TET qualified. 5. Thereafter, on 12.09.2020, an advertisement bearing no. GB-EST/ Advertisement/1 /2020/11 dated 11.09.2020 was published by the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department, by which applications were invited from TET qualified candidates for filing up 5746 number of vacant posts of Graduate Teachers (Science 1843 posts and Arts 3903 posts) in Provincialised High Schools/ Higher Secondary Schools in the State. In the advertisement, the last date for accepting applications was mentioned as midnight of 30.09.2020. Thereafter, the last date for submitting online applications was extended till 07.11.2020. In W.P.(C) 4377/2020, the respondent no. 5 in her affidavit-in-opposition has stated that the district wise verification of documents was scheduled from 09.11.2020 to 17.11.2020. 6. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel and Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in the first and second set of writ petitions have submitted that on 04.03.2020, when the results of TET examinations was published, only 7417 candidates were declared to be TET qualified. Thereafter, on 15.05.2020, an advertisement was published to enable candidates to seek re-evaluation i.e. after 2 months 11 days of declaration of result. It has been submitted that in the name of re-evaluation, the respondent authorities had awarded grace marks upto the maximum of 5 marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one. Thus, the total candidates qualifying TET was increased from 7,417 to 11,322. Thereafter, a third attempt was made by the respondent authorities to increase the number of TET qualified candidates, which was done pursuant to a decision taken by the TET empowered committee in its meeting held on 17.06.2020, wherein it was decided to grant 1 (one) grace marks for each of the two incorrect answers, which was stated to be after receipt of report from the resource University that had set the question paper. Thus, by the said third process, the number of successful TET qualified candidates was increased by 710 candidates. In other words, the successful TET qualified candidates had increased from 11,322 to 12,032. 7. The learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that as per TET guidelines of 11.02.2011 by NCTE, the purpose was (i) to bring about a benchmark in teaching quality; (ii) to improve performance standard; and (iii) teacher quality was emphasized. Accordingly, it was submitted that when TET was introduced to upgrade the teacher quality and to improve quality of education by allowing only TET qualified teachers to have the job of teaching, there was no logic to award grace marks and to place many of such candidates at a position superior to a large number of candidates who had qualified in TET examination without any grace marks. As an example, it was submitted that assuming that the candidate who cleared TET had obtained 60 marks in each of the two papers aggregating 120 marks in total, and on the contrary one unsuccessful candidate had scored 70 in Part-I and scored 55 in Part-II, he would be getting 5 grace marks in Part-II and his aggregate score would be 125 and thereby he would steal a march over the candidates who were successful on merit without any grace marks. Hence, it was submitted that the process was discriminatory and awarding of grace marks after declaring result amounted to changing the rules of game after the game was over. It was also submitted that transparent method for declaring TET qualified candidate was not followed in as much as it was not mentioned in the educational (TET) advertisement dated 13.11.2019 that a candidate would be entitled to grace marks in any one out of two parts/papers. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondent authorities could not have granted grace marks, as it was not provided for in the advertisement or permissible under any Act, Rules or notification. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondent authorities could not have granted grace marks, as it was not provided for in the advertisement or permissible under any Act, Rules or notification. In the said regard, it was submitted that a century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor (1876 Ch.D 426), Tassel M.R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden and that the said rule has stood the test of time and was applied by the Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmed v Emperor, AIR 1936 P.C. 253 , and later on applied by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. (1954) 1 SCR 1098. 8. It was also submitted that the beneficiaries of illegal process, i.e. those who were illegally given grace marks have no legal right to be heard. It was also submitted that even after participation by a candidate, if there was any violation of Rules, such action contrary to the rules can be challenged. 9. It was also submitted that one of the conditions in the TET advertisement dated 13.11.2019 was that the candidates would have to qualify in both the parts separately to qualify in the examination. Moreover, for general category candidates, 60% marks was required to be obtained in each part, i.e. Part-I and Part-II of the question booklet and in case of candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/MOBC/PWD category, relaxation of 5% marks was provided for, i.e. 55% marks was to be secured in each of the two parts separately. The said condition of advertisement had merely clarified the requirement of Rule 10(2) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “2018 Rules” for brevity) and therefore, the advertisement was not contradictory, but supplementary to the said rules. 10. Mr. S. Borthakur, appearing in W.P.(C) 3435/2020, i.e. the second set of writ petition where the petitioners are seeking grace marks in one part, had submitted that the petitioners had all secured 60% qualifying marks in the exam, but on the ground that they had not secured 60% marks in each of the two parts, they were not declared qualified in the exams. It has been submitted that as the clauses in the advertisement prescribing that one should qualify in each of the two papers/ parts with 60% was contradictory to the Rule 10(2) of 2018 Rules and NCTE guidelines, as such, the conditions given in the educational advertisement must give way to the provisions of Rule 10(2) of 2018 Rules which would prevail over the contradictory advertisement conditions. It has been submitted that under the facts of this case, the challenge made by the petitioners would be maintainable even after participating in the examination process because the illegality came to light only after TET result was altered in the second process undertaken by the respondent authorities. It was also submitted that perhaps without participating in the examination process, the petitioners would not have the locus to assail the illegality. It was also submitted that by participating in the examination process, the petitioners had agreed to compliance of the lawful part and not the illegality committed by the respondent authorities who had not adhered to the provisions of 10(2) of the 2018 Rules. 11. In the third and fourth set of writ petitions, the learned counsel for the said petitioners have submitted that there is no rationale in awarding only 5 grace marks and therefore, it was submitted that the petitioners were all entitled to further grace marks so as to be declared as TET qualified. 12. In connection with the third set of writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 3435/2020, it was submitted that out of the 24 petitioners, all the petitioners had obtained 120/110 marks or more in their respective unreserved/reserved, but they have still not qualified because in either of one out of two papers, the general category candidates had scored more than 60% and the reserved category candidates had secured 55%, but in the other paper, they did not score 60% and 55% respectively. Thus, even if upto 5 grace marks was to be awarded, the petitioners would still not qualify by a whisker of 1 or more marks. It has been submitted that grace marks of upto 5 was arbitrarily fixed without any rationale despite there being no mention of awarding any grace marks in the educational advertisement and therefore, it is prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to award appropriate grace marks and then declare the petitioners to be qualified. It has been submitted that grace marks of upto 5 was arbitrarily fixed without any rationale despite there being no mention of awarding any grace marks in the educational advertisement and therefore, it is prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to award appropriate grace marks and then declare the petitioners to be qualified. Thus, the case of the petitioners is that they had secured the requisite 60% and/or 55% in the aggregate under unreserved/ reserved category, yet as they had not secured 60% and/or 55% in one part out of two parts, the petitioners were declared unsuccessful in the TET exams. 13. In connection with the fourth set of writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 3633/2020, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authorities have not given marks to the petitioners for 4 correct answers, two in each of two parts. By referring to Test booklet code ‘R’, it was submitted that question nos. 63 and 91 of Part-I, and question nos. 102 and 177 of Part-II were incorrectly evaluated on the basis of wrong answer key. It has been submitted that although the respondent authorities have awarded 1 (one) grace marks each for question nos. 99 and 197 in Booklet code R and equivalent jumbled questions in booklet P, Q and S, but the remaining two questions were wrongly evaluated. Similarly, in connection with W.P.(C) 3703/2020, it has been submitted that after declaration of result, it was found that the petitioners were wrongly denied marks for correct answers given in respect of 12 questions, however, subsequently, the respondent authorities had awarded 1 (one) grace marks each in respect of two questions. By referring to Test booklet Code ‘P’, it was submitted that wrong answer-key was provided for question nos. 74, 96, 128, 129, 130, 132, 176, 186, 187, 191, 194, and 197 and reference has been made to allegedly correct answer as narrated in para-7 of the writ petition. Thus, it has been submitted that the answer scripts of these petitioners be send for re-evaluation. In connection with W.P.(C) 3882/2020, it was submitted that as illegality was committed in the conduct of TET examination by awarding grace marks, the entire examination be scrapped and directions be issued to hold a fresh TET examination. 14. Thus, it has been submitted that the answer scripts of these petitioners be send for re-evaluation. In connection with W.P.(C) 3882/2020, it was submitted that as illegality was committed in the conduct of TET examination by awarding grace marks, the entire examination be scrapped and directions be issued to hold a fresh TET examination. 14. The learned counsel for the remaining writ petitions have adopted the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. It may be mentioned that written argument was submitted in connection with W.P.(C) nos. 4455/2020, 3739/2020, 3881/2020, 3882/2020, 4038/2020, 4189/2020, and 4303/2020. 15. In support of their respective submissions, the following decisions were cited by Mr. R.P. Sarmah, and Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel as well as other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, viz., (i) Dr. (Maj.) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1632; (ii) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Surender Singh & Ors., (2019) 8 SCC 67 ; (iii) Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, (2018) 14 SCC 129 ; (iv) State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav, (2018) 13 SCC 560 ; (v) Ashish Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 55 ; (vi) Bishnu Biswas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 774 ; (vii) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 540 ; (viii) Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC 617 ; (ix) Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemlatha & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 568 ; (x) Bhanu Pratap v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 304; (xi) Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85 ; (xii) Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 108 ; (xiii) Himani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 ; (xiv) K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512 ; (xv) A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. v. D.S. Rao, (2007) 13 SCC 320 ; (xvi) Umrao Singh v. Punjabi University, (2005) 13 SCC 365 ; (xvii) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. Amit & Anr., (2002) 6 SCC 153 ; (xviii) Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj & Ors., MANU/SC/1409/1997: (1997) 9 SCC 527 ; (xix) Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 630 ; (xx) District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripua Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 ; (xxi) Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1984) 4 SCC 251 ; (xxii) S. Sumnyan & Ors. v. Limi Niri & Ors., 2010 (1) GLT 116; (xxiii) Matiur Rahman Bhuyan & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr., 2002 (1) GLT 316. Stand of the Secondary Education Department: 16. In this regard, it may be mentioned herein that the Director of Secondary Education had filed his affidavit-in-opposition in W.P.(C) Nos. 3435/2020, 3633/2020, 3703/2020, 3739/2020, 3881/2020, 4109/2020, 4192/2020, and 4198/2020 and those affidavits have been relied upon in all other cases. 17. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that only 6,879 candidates were declared TET qualified. Therefore, a conscious decision was taken and grace mark was awarded to the maximum of 5 marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one. After awarding grace marks, the number of TET qualified candidates stood at 11,322 and accordingly, the results were declared. Thereafter, as the answer keys were challenged, on receipt of clarification from the Resource University, the TET Empowered Committee had decided to award marks for two wrong answers given in the answer-key to those candidates who had not secured marks in the particular question and after this exercise, a total of 12,032 candidates were declared TET qualified, out of which 7417 candidates were qualified without grace marks and 4,615 candidates had qualified with award of grace marks. It may be mentioned that in course of his submissions, the learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department had clarified that as per records, 7589 candidates were qualified on merit and 4443 candidates had qualified with grace marks. The learned Advocate General had submitted that while calculating merit position, in accordance with the Schedule appended to Rule 10 of 2018 Rules the marks actually obtained in the TET examination, without considering the grace marks if any, will be taken into consideration. The learned Advocate General had submitted that while calculating merit position, in accordance with the Schedule appended to Rule 10 of 2018 Rules the marks actually obtained in the TET examination, without considering the grace marks if any, will be taken into consideration. In other words, it was submitted that at the time of tabulation of marks in the selection process in question, only the actual marks obtained by the candidates without taking into account the grace marks, will be counted. 18. It was further submitted that the TET Empowered Committee, Secondary and Elementary Education Department, had held its meeting on 17.06.2020, wherein the Chairman had showed to the participant members the questions challenged by candidates as well as the clarification received from the question setter, and thereupon, it was decided that 1 (one) grace marks should be given to all candidates for the said two questions (jumbled in four alphabetical series). 19. The question papers were in four alphabetical series, viz., P, Q, R, and S. The two questions (jumbled up and placed in different serial number in four series), for which the answer keys were incorrect were, viz., (i) Q. No. 74 in P-series; Q. No. 83 in Q-series; Q. No. 91 in R-series; and Q. No. 52 in S series; and (ii) Q. No. 194 in P-series; Q. No. 198 in Q-series; Q. No. 177 in R-series; and Q. No. 184 in S-series. In this regard, reference has been made to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P.(C) Nos. 3633/2020 and 3703/2020, wherein the marks obtained by the petitioners have been mentioned. 20. It was also submitted by the learned Advocate General that as per records available with him, as on 13.11.2019, the date of advertisement, 15,923 vacancies were available to be filled up. Accordingly, it has been submitted that there was no necessity of all the TET qualified candidates to worry if otherwise they have merit. Stand of the respondent nos. 5 to 717 in W.P.(C) 3739/2020: 21. Accordingly, it has been submitted that there was no necessity of all the TET qualified candidates to worry if otherwise they have merit. Stand of the respondent nos. 5 to 717 in W.P.(C) 3739/2020: 21. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents had submitted that Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules provide that for direct recruitment to the post, candidates shall have to appear and pass in the TET in the concern cadre by scoring 60% in case of unreserved category of candidates and minimum 55% in case of reserved category candidates and that as per 2018 Rules, a candidate has to qualify in the TET in addition to the academic and professional qualification for direct recruitment prescribed in the Schedule appended to the said 2018 Rules. It was submitted that the result was only for acquiring TET qualification, which was not to be equated to any recruitment process. Moreover, it was submitted that by exercising power under Section 33 of the 2018 Rules, the Government had the power and authority to relax the 2018 Rules if any Rule has caused any undue hardship in a particular case. Thus, it was submitted that the awarding of grace marks was a conscious decision of the Government to meet the requirement of having adequate TET qualified candidate. Hence, the decision of the Government to award 5 grace marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one was justified. It was also submitted that the condition in the advertisement relating to minimum qualifying marks for passing TET was contrary to Rule 10(2) and therefore, bad. 22. It was also submitted that it was provided in the employment advertisement dated 13.11.2019 that notwithstanding the minimum prescribed marks secured in TET examination, the number of candidates declared as TET examination qualified would be a maximum of double the number of vacancies of teachers and such candidates will be determined as per merit position. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the respondent authorities had not committed any wrong in awarding grace marks so that there may be sufficient number of TET qualified candidates. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the respondent authorities had not committed any wrong in awarding grace marks so that there may be sufficient number of TET qualified candidates. It was also submitted that TET is merely a qualification just like any marks obtained in any examination like Class-X or XII Board or Graduation, and therefore, TET is merely a qualification to apply and be considered for employment as teacher and that in no way the award of grace marks to the respondents and others have taken away the right of the petitioners to be considered for employment. Thus, it has been submitted that no hardship or prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners did not have the locus and/or cause of action to challenge the award of grace marks in TET examination. It was further submitted that the three tests to see if the decision making process is liable to be interfered with are (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. Therefore, it has been submitted that in this case by awarding grace marks, no provisions of any Act, Rules, notifications including National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE for short) guidelines was violated as such the decision to award grace marks cannot be said to be illegal. It was further submitted that in connection with the notification of NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011, relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court of India had recorded the stand of the NCTE in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 595 , which is quoted below:- “16. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an ‘academic authority' under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.” 23. Therefore, it was submitted that as the State Government was neither obliged give nor gave any weightage to marks obtained in TET, no wrong was committed by the State Government in prescribing that no weightage would be given to grace-marks while recruiting teachers. In this regard, reliance was also placed on the case of The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Amit & Anr., (2002) 6 SCC 153 , to bring home the point that reference to marks obtained and marks granted have different meaning and that when the State has taken a conscious decision to give weightage only to marks obtained and not the grace-marks, which comes within the meaning of marks granted, the petitioners would have no locus to question the grace marks awarded to the private respondents. 24. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following cases, viz., (i) Pranav Verma & Ors. v. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1610 : (2020) 15 SCC 377 ; (ii) Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors. (supra); (iii) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465 ; (iv) Amit & Anr. (supra); (v) J.C. Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 189 . Reasons and decision: (A) On whether the condition in the advertisement requiring a candidate to qualify with 60% and/or 55% in both papers was contradictory to Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules: 25. (supra); (v) J.C. Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 189 . Reasons and decision: (A) On whether the condition in the advertisement requiring a candidate to qualify with 60% and/or 55% in both papers was contradictory to Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules: 25. In the advertisement dated 13.11.2019, mention has been made about Rule 10 (1 and 2) of the 2018 Rules and about the requirement to score minimum 60% marks in case of general category candidate and 55% marks in case of SC/ST/OBC/ MOBC/Physically handicapped candidates. In the said view of the matter, one of the questions that arises for determination in this case is as to “whether the clause in the advertisement dated 13.11.2019 that candidates would have to qualify in both the parts separately to qualify in the examination, i.e. 60% marks in each part for general category candidates and 55% marks in each part for candidates belonging to SC/ST/ OBC/MOBC/PWD category is contrary to the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules?” In this connection, it would be appropriate to quote below the provisions of Rules 10(1) and 10(2) of 2018 Rules, which reads as follows:- “10. Academic and professional qualification:- (1) The academic and professional qualification for direct recruitment shall be as in Schedule-III. (2) In addition to such academic and professional qualifications mentioned in Schedule-III, for direct recruitment to the posts, the candidates shall have to appear and pass in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) in the concerned cadre, conducted by the Government scoring a minimum of 60% marks in case of Unreserved category candidates and minimum 55% marks in case of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/ Other Backward Classes and Persons with disabilities candidates: Provided further that any experienced teacher who has appeared but could not secure the minimum qualifying marks in the TET, shall be awarded at least 60 marks in respect of the experience if he or she has already completed 15 years of teaching experience. Any marks secured by such experienced teacher over and above 60 qualifying marks in TET shall be counted additionally in respect of TET for such teacher for the purpose of selection for the post of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher as the case may be.” 26. Any marks secured by such experienced teacher over and above 60 qualifying marks in TET shall be counted additionally in respect of TET for such teacher for the purpose of selection for the post of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher as the case may be.” 26. In the said regard, we may also refer to the provisions of Clause 9 of the NCTE guidelines for conducting TET, as circulated vide NCTE letter no. 76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.02.2011, which is quoted below:- A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided) (a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy; (b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process, however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/ employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.” 27. Thus, as per Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules read with NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011, there is no requirement of a candidate to score 60% marks in each of the two parts. For the purpose of illustration only, it may be mentioned that the said Rule 10(2) condition appears to be the standard criteria in examinations like Board and University exams because in a Board or University examination, a student cannot be denied first class if he scores 60% in the aggregate, although having not scored 60% marks in each subject. Therefore, there is no doubt that the condition imposed in the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019 that candidates would have to qualify in both the parts separately to qualify in the examination, i.e. 60% marks in each part for general category candidates and 55% marks in each part for candidates belonging to SC/ST/ OBC/MOBC/PWD category is contradictory to the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules read with Clause 9 of NCTE guidelines for conducting TET dated 11.02.2011. The said point is answered accordingly. 28. The said point is answered accordingly. 28. In respect of the aforesaid finding, the Court is of the considered opinion that the candidates who have participated in the examination and are thereafter assailing the clause in the educational advertisement that a candidate has to secure the cut-off marks in both parts/ papers are not precluded from assailing such clause which is inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules read with NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011. In this regard, the Court finds support from the ratio laid down in the case of Dr. (Maj.) Meeta Sahai (supra). 29. In light of the said finding, the respondent authorities i.e. the Secondary Education Department shall have to undertake an exercise to find out the candidates who belong to unreserved category and have obtained 60% in the aggregate of both parts/papers and candidates of reserved category who have obtained 55% in the aggregate of both parts/ papers would have to be declared TET qualified. B. On the issue of awarding grace-marks: 30. Now the issue of granting grace marks to some candidates is taken up for examination. 31. It is not in dispute at the Bar that all the candidates whose TET result was declared on 04.03.2020 had qualified without any grace marks. Moreover, neither from the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019, nor from the subsequent advertisement dated 15.05.2020, when applications for re-evaluation was invited, it could be shown that the decision of the Government in the Education (Secondary) Department to award grace-marks to certain category of examinees was mentioned. In the matter of awarding “grace marks” awarded to a large number of candidates, none of the parties in these series of writ petitions including the Secondary Education Department have been able to refer to any law in force, including any Act, rules or notification by the Central Government, State Government or by the NCTE, whereby provisions had been made for awarding grace marks to either a person or a class of persons, save and except when evaluation of answer-script had been made basing on incorrect answer-key, as was done in this case in respect of two questions, morefully referred herein before. Be that as it may, no material has been brought on record to show that the decision to grant grace marks was taken before issuance of educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019. Be that as it may, no material has been brought on record to show that the decision to grant grace marks was taken before issuance of educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019. Inference to the aforesaid effect can be drawn from the fact that in the advertisement dated 13.11.2019 and 15.05.2020, it has not been specifically mentioned that grace marks of upto 5 would be awarded to those candidates who have a shortfall of 5 marks and below in any one part of the two parts of the question paper. 32. In these set of cases, it is apparent that the absence of any such information in the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019 and advertisement dated 15.05.2020, inviting applications for re-evaluation, the petitioners in W.P.(C) nos. 3633/2020 and 3703/2020 were deprived from applying for re-evaluation, as they had accepted their fate, without any knowledge that the Government in the Secondary Education Department may award grace-marks. It may be mentioned that the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has not specifically mentioned as to whether the Secondary Education Department, of its own, and irrespective of applications for re-evaluation, had undertaken the exercise of examining all the answer-scripts and after finding out which of such remaining candidates would be entitled to grace-marks in terms of the alleged decision by the TET Empowered Committee. It would be worth mentioning that the Director, Secondary Education, Assam has even not disclosed the date when an alleged decision was taken by the competent authority to “award a maximum grace mark of 5 marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified either of the two parts but failed in one”, as mentioned in para 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P.(C) 3739/2020, and similarly, the source of power to award grace marks has also not been disclosed. The holding of TET examination was not under the 2018 Rules. Hence, power to relax the 2018 Rules could not have been exercised to award grace marks. 33. It is a fact that Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules provide that a candidate must score a minimum of 60% marks for general candidate and 55% marks for reserved category candidates. However, in contrast, the Member Secretary, TET Empowered Committee, had inserted a condition in the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019 that a candidate has to score/ obtain 60% and/or 55% marks, as applicable, in both parts of the examination. However, in contrast, the Member Secretary, TET Empowered Committee, had inserted a condition in the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019 that a candidate has to score/ obtain 60% and/or 55% marks, as applicable, in both parts of the examination. Thus, it was apparent that atleast as on 13.11.2019, there was no intention of the Government in the Secondary Education Department or by the TET Empowered Committee to allow any candidate not scoring the minimum qualifying marks to be awarded with TET qualification. Therefore, there is no doubt that having declared the TET examination result on 04.03.2020, the decision, if any, by the Government in the Secondary Education Department to award grace marks was taken after declaration of the TET results on 04.03.2020. Thus, in this case, the rules of the game was changed after the game was over and after the results was declared. 34. Although the stand of the Secondary Education Department was that there was a conscious decision to award grace marks upto the maximum of 5 marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one part, but such a decision or the decision making process of the State has not been made a part of record by the Secondary Education Department in their affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P.(C) 3739/2020. The statement in para-9 of the said affidavit is merely verified to be from knowledge, and such verification makes it clear that such statement is not borne by any record. Thus, in this case the decision making process to award grace marks is vitiated in absence of any provisions in any law for the time being in force. Moreover, this appears to be a fit, appropriate and proper case where the principles prescribed in Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1972 can be invoked to draw a presumption – “that the evidence which could be and not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.” Moreover, the purported advertisement for re-evaluation dated 15.05.2020, there was no indication that any grace marks was proposed to be awarded. Had such a decision been taken in advance, there was no reason for the authorities to not make a mention about the same in the subsequent re-evaluation advertisement dated 15.05.2020, which may have resulted in many more applications being submitted for re-evaluation of answer-scripts. Had such a decision been taken in advance, there was no reason for the authorities to not make a mention about the same in the subsequent re-evaluation advertisement dated 15.05.2020, which may have resulted in many more applications being submitted for re-evaluation of answer-scripts. At least, the petitioners in W.P.(C) nos. 3633/2020 and 3703/2020 could have approached for re-evaluation. 35. It may be mentioned that under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act for short), the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE for short) had issued guidelines from time to time and one such guideline circulated vide NCTE letter no. 76-4/2010/NCTE/Acad dated 11.02.2011, provides for qualifying marks in Clause 9 thereof. The said Clause-9 of NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 has been extracted herein before. 36. Notwithstanding that the Court finds force in the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel/ counsel for those petitioners who are assailing award of grace marks on the ground that by awarding grace marks, there is a likelihood that some of the beneficiaries might have scored above others who have qualified in TET without grace marks. However, the Court refrains from returning any finding in this regard because in order to test the said submission, the mark-sheets of all candidates were not sent to any expert body for making an enquiry in this regard. 37. Thus, in light of the discussions above, the Court is inclined to hold that the action of the respondent authorities in awarding “grace marks” to some candidates fails the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India owing to the following reasons, viz., (i) the educational advertisement did not mention that any grace marks would be awarded; (ii) the results were declared on 04.03.2020 and thereafter, the advertisement dated 15.05.2020, issued for inviting applications for re-evaluation, but like the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019, the said subsequent advertisement dated 15.05.2020 also did not contain any information that grace marks would be awarded. Therefore, the purported decision to award grace marks, which has not been produced before the Court, lacked transparency; (iii) Moreover, Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules and NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011 require that in order to qualify TET examination, a candidate must score 60% for general category and 55% for reserved category. Therefore, the purported decision to award grace marks, which has not been produced before the Court, lacked transparency; (iii) Moreover, Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules and NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011 require that in order to qualify TET examination, a candidate must score 60% for general category and 55% for reserved category. Therefore, the condition in the advertisement that a candidate must score such minimum marks in each of the two parts is a condition contrary to the said Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules and also contradictory to NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011. Hence, the purported decision to award grace marks so as to enable some candidates to score the minimum marks in either of one part of examination is foreign to the provisions of Rule 10(2); (iv) the awarding of grace marks without making it a part of condition in the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019 is contrary to the Clause 9 of the herein before referred guidelines circulated vide NCTE letter dated 11.02.2011; and (v) by award of grace marks to make candidate qualify TET does not satisfy the requirement of NCTE Act, Rules and notifications issued from time to time, which lays a lot of emphasis on improving the standard of teachers and teaching quality. Therefore, on facts and in light of the provisions of 2018 Rules and NCTE Act and Rules framed thereunder or the guidelines issued thereunder, the purported decision to award grace marks is not sustainable. 38. Now the decisions cited at the Bar is required to be examined to find out if award of grace marks in these writ petitions is sustainable. 39. The ratio which can be culled out from the cases cited at the learned senior counsel and counsel for the petitioners in those cases where grace-marks granted is being opposed are as follows:- a. In the case of Rupashree Chowdhary (supra), the Supreme Court of India had not approved of rounding-off or granting of grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In this case a 44.93% marks obtained by a candidate was rounded up to 45%. Nonetheless, the said judgment was rendered in the context of a recruitment examination. In this case a 44.93% marks obtained by a candidate was rounded up to 45%. Nonetheless, the said judgment was rendered in the context of a recruitment examination. Nonetheless, in the said case, the Supreme Court of India had observed that rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. b. In the case of Taniya Malik (supra), the Supreme Court of India did not approve of the relaxation of minimum pass marks. In the said case, examination was held for recruitment of District Judge. The prayer in the writ petition was that the minimum cut off marks in the written examination be relaxed from 40% to 33% in each paper on the ground that as a person who has obtained the highest marks, could not clear one of the papers by a narrow margin of one mark. In the said context, it was held that the minimum passing marks in each of the paper is absolutely necessary so as to adjudge the academic knowledge in various subjects and that merely by scoring highest marks in general knowledge and language paper is not going to help and that minimum knowledge in other subjects, civil and criminal law was also requisite and that is true for vice versa too, and that is why minimum passing marks had been prescribed and fixation of 40% was quite reasonable and proper and therefore, it was held that it would be not proper for the said Court to interfere in the same. It was also held that the candidates (petitioners therein) undertaking exam with stipulation of minimum cut-off marks in written and oral examination, having failed, cannot turn round and are estopped to contend to the contrary. c. In the case of Matiur Rahman Bhuyan (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had held in context of recruitment examination conducted by Assam Public Service Commission that the Commission cannot change the criteria or basis of selection and directed the Commission to hold the examination again by giving reasonable opportunity to all the candidates who had applied earlier in response to the advertisement. d. In the context of question of regularisation of service of Primary School teachers, it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra), that proper qualification was mandatory and cannot be relaxed and thus, the benefit of relaxation was not given to 1.78 lakh contractual para-teachers. e. In the case of Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed that when emphasis is given in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, it is impermissible for relaxation or rounding off in the absence of statutory provisions for the same. Accordingly, it was held that when eligibility criteria are prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to and any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. f. In the case of Bhanu Pratap (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed to the effect that there is no power provided in the statute nor any such stipulation was made in the advertisement and also in the statutory Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement and that the Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory Rules for providing or giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation, therefore, both the Selection Committee as also the Appointing Authority are bound to act within the parameters of the Rules which are statutory in nature and any violation or any relaxation thereof whether by way of giving grace marks or rounding off would be acting beyond the parameters prescribed which would be illegal. g. In the case of Amit & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed to the effect that it is only where the language of the statute is absolutely clear that the claim for the award of grace marks can be sustained and it was also observed that the grant of grace marks being a matter of concession and which tends to dilute academic standards, regulations dealing with grant of grace marks should not be generously and liberally construed. Moreover, it has been also observed that not possessing the desired merit would amount to interference in the right of the employer to have a suitable candidate and would also cause injustice to the other candidates who had participated in the process and had secured a better percentage. h. In the case of Surender Singh (supra), the matter related to selection process of teachers and after selecting the last candidate securing 89.25%, there still remained 63 vacant posts out of the total notified vacancies and therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court had issued a direction for some candidates who had missed out due to marginally lower marks. In the said factual background, the Supreme Court of India had held that any undue sympathy shown to the private respondents so as to direct their selection despite not possessing the desired merit would amount to interference with the right of the employer to have suitable candidates and would also cause injustice to other candidates who had participated in the process and had secured a better marks than the private respondents herein but lower than the cut-off percentage and had accepted the legal position with regard to employer’s right in selection process and accordingly, it was further held that providing the benefit to the private respondents by applying the principles laid down in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr., (2006) 11 SCC 464 would not be justified. i. In the case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved and it was further observed that even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement and that relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. j. In the case of K. Manjushree (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that changing the criteria after completion of the selection process when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview was illegal. j. In the case of K. Manjushree (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that changing the criteria after completion of the selection process when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview was illegal. k. In the case of Himani Malhotra (supra), it was held that if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voce before the commencement of the selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/ qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks for the interview. l. In the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed that it is salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentality to tinker with the rules of the game in so far as the eligibility criteria is concerned. m. In the case of Bishnu Biswas (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed that the selection committee/ authority has no inherent jurisdiction to lay down such norms for selection in addition to the procedure prescribed by the rules and it was further observed that selection is to be made giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and if such power i.e. inherent jurisdiction is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. n. In the case of S. Sumnyan & Ors. v. Limi Niri & Ors., 2010 (2) GLT 116, the Division Bench of this Court had held that essential conditions of recruitment cannot be relaxed. o. In the case of Ashish Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that advertisement contrary to the Rules must give way to the Rule. p. In the case of Dr.(Maj.) Meeta Sahai (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that even after participating in the process without challenging it, the selection process can be challenged because a candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not illegality in it and that in a case where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, cannot be condoned merely because a candidate had partaken in it. In this regard it was further observed that in fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of provisions of Constitution unless he/she participates in the selection process. q. The case of Prabodh Verma (supra), was relied upon for the point if due to large number of affected parties some of them are arrayed in representative capacity, the writ petitions would be maintainable. In this context, it was submitted that some of the candidates who were awarded grace marks have been made party respondents in W.P.(C) 4038/2020 and W.P.(C) 3739/2020, thus, in representative capacity they are representing all those who may be adversely affected if award of grace marks is interfered with. r. In the case of M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed as follows:- “6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact.” s. In the case of Umrao Singh (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed as follows:- “12. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is the scope for relaxation of norms. Although the court must look with respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141 this Court held that once it is established that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised.” 40. We would now refer to the cases cited by the learned senior counsel appearing for private respondent nos. 5 to 717 in W.P.(C) 3739/2020, which is discussed herein after:- a. In the case of Pranav Verma (supra), Writ Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by more than 90 candidates challenging the entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2017 and seeking to quash the result declared on 11.4.2019 along with the directions to get all the papers of the Main Exam of the petitioners to be re-evaluated by an Independent Expert Committee, besides the constitution of an Independent Judicial Service Commission for conducting examinations for selection of Lower Judicial Officers. Out of 1195 candidates appeared in Main examination only 9 found fit for viva voce against 107 vacancies. The question which arose before the Supreme Court of India was Whether moderation of marks (grace marks) was needed in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the marking in Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II, both was strict and the marking of Civil Law-II was only marginally strict. Thus, it was held that equity can be well balanced by awarding 10 marks to every candidate in Civil Law-II paper and 20 marks in Civil Law-I. Thus, it was submitted that awarding of grace marks was not foreign to examination system. b. In the case of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), the Supreme Court of India by referring to the notification dated 11.02.2011, upon which the learned senior counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance, had observed that the stand of the NCTE was as follows:- “16. b. In the case of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), the Supreme Court of India by referring to the notification dated 11.02.2011, upon which the learned senior counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance, had observed that the stand of the NCTE was as follows:- “16. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an ‘academic authority' under Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Central Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government was under obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement.” c. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), the Supreme Court had observed that a person who raises grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury and that a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others. d. In the case of Amit & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court of India had observed as follows:- “13. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that sub-clause (3) of note 2 which refers to "a candidate obtaining not less than 105 marks" refers to the marks actually obtained by the candidate on the basis of his performance in the examination and not the marks deemed to have been obtained by him after granting grace marks. She submitted, and in our view rightly, that sub-clause (3) of note 2 is unambiguous, and permits of no confusion or controversy. The regulation clearly makes a distinction between marks "granted" and marks "obtained". Whenever the regulation refers to the marks obtained by a candidate, it refers to the marks awarded to him on the basis of his performance in the examination. The regulation clearly makes a distinction between marks "granted" and marks "obtained". Whenever the regulation refers to the marks obtained by a candidate, it refers to the marks awarded to him on the basis of his performance in the examination. But whenever it refers to marks granted, if refers to the grace marks which are given to the candidate as a matter of concession. She, therefore, submitted that the benefit of sub-clause (3) of note 2 may be given only to a candidate who has actually obtained in the examination 105 marks in the subjects mathematics and science taken together and not less than 38 marks in the subject of failure. So far as the appellant is concerned, for the purpose of sub-clause (3) of note 2, he should be considered to have obtained marks less than 38 in the subject of failure namely, mathematics since he actually secured only 19 marks. We find considerable force in the submission urged on behalf of the appellant and it must be upheld. Regulation 52 refers to the passing marks which a candidate "must obtain" or "must secure". Clause (3) (a) which deals with grant of automatic condonation uses the words "shall be granted automatic condonation of marks". Similarly under clause (b) of subclause (2) of regulation 3(a) the words used are "shall also be granted". Clause ’d’ to 'f' only extend the grace marks upto 20. Under note 2 sub clause (2) which deals with automatic condonation of marks, reference is to the marks "granted". The scheme of the regulation is therefore quite clear and it clearly makes a distinction between marks "obtained" or "secured" and grace marks "granted". In the light of this, if we consider sub-clause (3) under note 2 it would be apparent that the said sub-clause does not at all deal with grant of grace marks. Regulation 52 is a comprehensive provision and sub-clause (3) under note 2 only deals with the grant of benefit of combined passing in the subjects mathematics and science. It begins with a non-obstante clause and lays down a special rule notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1), (2) and (3)(a) of Regulation 52. Regulation 52 is a comprehensive provision and sub-clause (3) under note 2 only deals with the grant of benefit of combined passing in the subjects mathematics and science. It begins with a non-obstante clause and lays down a special rule notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1), (2) and (3)(a) of Regulation 52. It clearly implies that even if a candidate would have otherwise failed having regard to the provisions of clauses (1) and (2), despite grant of grace marks under clause (3)(a), yet under sub-clause (3) of note 2 he is entitled to the benefit of combined passing in the subjects mathematics and science, provided he has obtained not less than 105 marks in the aforesaid two subjects taken together, while obtaining not less than 38 marks in the subject or subjects of failure. We have already held that obtaining of not less than 38 marks refers to the marks actually obtained by a candidate in the examination on the basis of his performance, and without addition of grace marks. So construed sub-clause (3) of note 2 does not confer any benefit on a candidate like respondent no. 1 who secured only 19 marks in the subject mathematics and therefore, does not fulfill the second condition. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that sub-clause (3) of note 2 confers no benefit on the respondent no. 1 since he is not eligible thereunder for the benefit of combined passing, having secured less than 38 marks in the subject mathematics. The high Court was clearly in error in extending to the respondent no. 1, the benefit under the aforesaid provision. e. In the case of J.S. Yadav (supra), the facts of the case was that the non-availability of suitable Class-II officers in Engineering Department, possessing the necessary and prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class-I posed a problem for the State Government, as on account of the large scale expansion of Engineering Department a number of posts in Class-I service were lying vacant. A similar situation prevailed in the Building and Road Branch of Public Works Department. A similar situation prevailed in the Building and Road Branch of Public Works Department. In the circumstances, the State Government with a view to meet the particular situation decided to relax the qualifying length of service to such officers who had completed four years of service in Class-II and it therefore, relaxed the requirement of Rule 6(b) to the extent that a member of Class-II service having four years' of service was qualified for being considered for promotion to Class-I service. Under the aforesaid facts, the Supreme Court of India had observed that the relaxation had been granted to particular individuals with a view to meet the situation, which was in public interest and found no legal infirmity in the order of relaxation. In this regard, it is also submitted that in the present case in hand, a large number of posts of teachers were lying vacant as such, there was no infirmity in the decision of the respondent authorities to award grace marks, which is merely to make the candidates TET qualified, which in no way would guarantee employment to any of the TET qualified candidates. 41. Thus, from the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the private respondents, it is made to appear that as on 04.03.2020, the date when the TET results were declared, there were sufficient vacant posts of teachers lying vacant in various schools and educational institutions throughout the State. Thus, in the first flush, the reliance on the ratio of the case of J.S. Yadav (supra) appears to be justified. However, the Court is unable to apply the ratio of the case of J.S. Yadav (supra) in the unique and distinguishable facts of these cases for the reason that the TET examination has no connection with the subsequently announced recruitment process of teachers for schools in the State. The statement in the educational advertisement (i.e. TET) that TET qualified candidate would be twice the number of vacancy also appears to be fallacious because of the fact that when the TET examination was announced, and the TET results were declared on 04.03.2020, and grace marks was granted after issuance of re-evaluation advertisement on 15.05.2020, the State Government in the Secondary Education Department had not yet made any public announcement of vacant posts of teachers which would be filled up subsequent to the said TET examination. Thus, the Court cannot take cognizance of any vacancy that existed when (i) educational advertisement was issued, (ii) TET result was declared, (iii) re-evaluation advertisement was issued, or (iv) grace-marks was awarded. Whereas, in the case of J.S. Yadav (supra), the Government had taken note of the factual situation and had taken a decision to relax the length of service. In the said case while the case of the appellants before the Supreme Court was considered for promotion from Grade-II to Grade-I by relaxing criteria of length of service by invoking Rule 22 of the applicable service rules and the case of the private respondent was not considered for promotion. The said Rule 22 relating to power to relax provided that “where Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these Rules causes undue hardship to any particular case, it may by order dispense with or relax the requirements of that Rule to such extent, and subject to such conditions, as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” Moreover, another factor was considered by the Supreme Court, which is that the appellants before the Court had completed eight years of service before January 15, 1980, the date on which the Division Bench of the High Court set aside their promotions and therefore, it was held that in view of the principles laid down in Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1536 : (1979) 1 SCC 168 , it was held that the appellants' appointment, even if irregular, stood regularised on the date they had completed eight years of their service and thereafter their promotions could not be set aside. Thus, the ratio of the case of J.S. Yadav (supra), would not apply under the unique and distinguishable facts of the present case. 42. The case of Amit & Anr. (supra), would also not help the respondent nos. 5 to 717 in W.P.(C) 3739/2020 or the Government in the Secondary Education Department because in the said case, under relevant Regulation 53, an examinee was entitled to grace marks as he had participated in sports at the State level. The other facts of the said case need not be discussed because in the present case in hand, no provisions of law has been shown that award of any grace marks was envisaged. 43. The other facts of the said case need not be discussed because in the present case in hand, no provisions of law has been shown that award of any grace marks was envisaged. 43. In the case of Pranav Verma (supra), a retired Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court of India had conducted an enquiry and on the basis of his report, the Supreme Court of India formed an opinion that the marks given in Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II were strict and accordingly, held that equity can be well balanced by awarding 10 grace marks in Civil Law-II and 20 grace marks in Civil Law-I. In the present case in hand, it is nobody’s case that the marks awarded in the examination was strict and save and except two writ petitions, where there is a prayer for re-evaluation of allegedly four incorrectly evaluated questions, there is no prayer by any candidate for re-evaluation of all the answer-scripts on allegations that strict marks were given. Therefore, although the award of grace marks is not foreign to examination process, the case of Pranav Verma (supra) is distinguishable on facts of the present cases and therefore, the Court is not inclined to apply the ratio of the said case in this present set of cases. Rather, the ratio of the cases of Rupashree Chowdhary (supra), Taniya Malik (supra), Bhanu Pratap (supra), and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and Higher Education (supra) would more aptly apply. 44. From the facts of the case of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), it appears that in the context of NCTE guidelines which were issued on 11.02.2011, the stand of the NCTE before the Supreme Court of India was that the notification dated 11.02.2011 that it was not mandatory to give weightage of marks obtained in TET, which was accepted by the Supreme Court of India as a possible interpretation. There appears to be no quarrel with the said proposition because even in the present case, the submission of the learned Advocate General appearing for the State was to the effect that the grace-marks granted to the candidates would not be considered. There appears to be no quarrel with the said proposition because even in the present case, the submission of the learned Advocate General appearing for the State was to the effect that the grace-marks granted to the candidates would not be considered. However, we cannot omit to take into consideration that in the present case no question has been raised as to whether or not the marks obtained in TET must be given any weightage, but the issue is whether the action of the respondent authorities in awarding grace marks upto the maximum of 5 marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one is sustainable. 45. From the ratio of the case of Dr. (Maj.) Meeta Sahai (supra), it is seen that where process in selection process and examination is demonstrated to be illegal, the writ petition would be maintainable at the instance of the candidate who had participated in the process. 46. As mentioned herein before, it is reiterated that there is no material on record to show that which authority had taken the decision to award grace marks of upto 5 marks. The respondent authorities have only shown that the TET Empowered Committee had taken a decision to award 1 (one) grace marks each for two incorrect answer-key after receipt of clarification from the resource University. Therefore, the Government in the Secondary Education Department has miserably failed to justify the award of such grace marks, except the award of grace marks for incorrect answer key. 47. Thus, coming to the present case in hand, the Court is unable to hold the award of grace-marks in TET examinations as sustainable for the following reasons:- a. It has not been demonstrated that in the educational advertisement dated 13.11.2019, it has been mentioned that the respondent authorities had reserved power to award grace marks upto the maximum of 5 marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one part and in this regard, no reference has been made to any law including any Act, rules, regulation, notification, Office Memorandum or to any of the section/rule/ provisions/ clauses thereof. Therefore, the exercise of such power is dehors any provisions of law. Therefore, the exercise of such power is dehors any provisions of law. b. Moreover, in this case, it has not been shown that the decision to award grace-marks preceded the educational advertisement or before the results was declared on 04.03.2020 or even before issuance of advertisement dated 15.05.2020 inviting applications for re-evaluation. Therefore, no transparency was maintained in the matter of award of grace-marks. c. The purpose of introducing TET qualification as mandatory apart from a candidate holding the prescribed educational qualification was to enhance teacher as well as teaching quality. The said purpose would be diluted by awarding of grace-marks by the respondent authorities. There appears to be no rationale to award grace-marks of upto 5 marks to in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one part. d. The provisions of Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules read with Clause 9 of the NCTE guidelines circulated vide NCTE letter dated 11.02.2011, makes it clear that the prescription of law is that in order to qualify in the TET examination, a candidate has to secure 60% marks in the aggregate and not 60% in each individual paper. Nonetheless, having taken such stand, it would not be permissible for the respondent authorities to dilute the said requirement by liberally granting grace-marks and dilute merit by allowing candidates lacking merit to qualify. Thus, when the power to relax was not made widely known to the public, the exercise of such power is contrary to the principles of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the Court finds support from the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (supra), and Bedanga Talukdar (supra). e. The stand of the respondents is that there were sufficient vacancies when grace-marks was awarded is held to fallacious because nothing has been brought on record that the Government in the Secondary Education Department had announced vacant posts of teachers for the purpose of holding TET examinations. e. The stand of the respondents is that there were sufficient vacancies when grace-marks was awarded is held to fallacious because nothing has been brought on record that the Government in the Secondary Education Department had announced vacant posts of teachers for the purpose of holding TET examinations. Moreover, the clause in the advertisement – “Notwithstanding the minimum prescribed marks secured in TET examination, the number of candidates declared as TET examination qualified would be a maximum of double the number of vacancies of teachers and such candidates will be determined as per merit position”, cannot be interpreted to mean that the respondent authorities would award grace-marks so as to make sufficient number of candidates TET qualified to the extent of two times the number of vacant posts available. Moreover, in his affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam in W.P.(C) 3739/2020, the number of vacant posts of Graduate Teachers (Science and Arts) in provincialised High/ Higher Secondary Schools in Assam had not been disclosed for the reasons best known to the authorities. Therefore, the Court finds no merit in the justification on part of the respondent authorities to award grace-marks by projecting that after the results were declared on 04.03.2020, there was a meager number of TET qualified candidates. The subsequent advertisement inviting applications to fill up 5746 posts after results were announced cannot justify award of grace-marks prior in point of time. f. The change in eligibility criteria after results were declared on 04.03.2020 cannot be sustained in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (supra), and Matiur Rahman Bhuyan (supra). The decision rendered in the case of Anand Prakash Yadav (supra) and Surender Singh (supra) deprecates relaxation of qualification. Moreover, in the case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held that relaxation of any condition of advertisement without due publication is contrary to the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. g. Apart from mentioning that anomaly was detected by the resource University in two questions, viz., question no. 74 and 194 of ‘P’ series of the question booklet, the respondent authorities have not stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 that after re-evaluation, the candidates secured higher marks. g. Apart from mentioning that anomaly was detected by the resource University in two questions, viz., question no. 74 and 194 of ‘P’ series of the question booklet, the respondent authorities have not stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 that after re-evaluation, the candidates secured higher marks. However, a specific stand has been taken in para 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition to the effect that “… during evaluation of the results, it was noticed that only 6879 candidates had qualified the TET examination. Therefore, a conscious process was initiated regarding the poor performance of all candidates and several aspects were examined. After due deliberation a decision was taken to award a maximum grace mark of 5 marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified either of the two parts but failed in one …” appears to be an incorrect stand because of the fact that on 04.03.2020, the result of TET examination had been already declared. Therefore, the said decision was taken post declaration of the result. Such a decision was taken despite taking note of the poor performance of candidates and therefore, the action to award grace-marks to admittedly ‘poor candidates’ dilutes the purpose of the NCTE Act and Rules, which gives focus on enhancing teacher quality and teaching quality. h. In this case, the award of grace-marks has the effect of diluting academic standard and therefore, the award of grace-marks is nowhere close to achieve greater public interest for which high academic standards was envisaged under NCTE Act and Rules framed thereunder. Otherwise, there would be no purpose to have any cut-off marks in any examination whatsoever and apply the same logic that mere marks obtained in examination would not entitle any person to any job. i. A reference was made to the provisions of Section 33 of the 2018 Rules, which provides for the power of the Government to relax the Rules. The said provisions might apply in a given case in matters relating to service, but nothing has been shown that the said provision would apply also in the matter of awarding grace-marks in TET qualifying examination. j. It is the categorical stand in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no. 2 that there was poor performance by candidates. The said provisions might apply in a given case in matters relating to service, but nothing has been shown that the said provision would apply also in the matter of awarding grace-marks in TET qualifying examination. j. It is the categorical stand in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no. 2 that there was poor performance by candidates. Therefore, by awarding grace marks to admittedly poor candidates, (a) the right of the employer to employ suitable candidates would be interfered with, and (b) it would cause injustice to the other candidates who had participated in the examination and scored a better percentage of marks than the candidates who were granted grace-marks. k. In this case, the rules and result of the game was changed after the game was over, i.e. after results were announced and published on 04.03.2020, for which the respondent authorities had no inherent jurisdiction, having not been conferred by any law in force. Thus, in this aspect, the ratio of the cases of Himani Malhotra (supra), Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and Bishnu Biswas (supra), appears to come to the aid of the case of the petitioners opposing granting of grace-marks. l. The grant of grace marks in a sort of concession given to those candidates who did not qualify TET and in this regard, the Court is bound by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Amit & Anr. (supra), where it was held to the effect that regulations dealing with grant of grace marks should not be generously and liberally construed as grant of such marks tends to dilute academic standards. m. The award of grace marks would be disadvantageous to the right of the employer to have a TET qualified candidate as teacher, as held in the case of Amit & Anr. (supra). It would also be disadvantageous to the other candidates who have cleared TET examination without any grace-marks. Thus, the ratio of the case of Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (supra) and M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra) squarely helps the cause of the petitioners, opposing award of grace marks. (supra). It would also be disadvantageous to the other candidates who have cleared TET examination without any grace-marks. Thus, the ratio of the case of Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (supra) and M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra) squarely helps the cause of the petitioners, opposing award of grace marks. n. Be that as it may, in so far as the decision of the TET Empowered Committee meeting held on 17.06.2020 is concerned, where on the basis of the clarification received from the question setter, it was decided that 1 (one) grace marks should be given to all candidates for the said two questions (jumbled in four alphabetical series), viz., (i) Q. No. 74 in P-series; Q. No. 83 in Q-series; Q. No. 91 in R-series; and Q. No. 52 in S-series; and (ii) Q. No. 194 in P-series; Q. No. 198 in Q-series; Q. No. 177 in R-series; and Q. No. 184 in S-series, the award of such grace marks is fully justified. The candidates must not suffer because of incorrect answer provided by the resource University. The award of 1 (one) grace marks each in respect of the said two questions is justified and cannot be interfered with. C. Whether the petitioners in W.P.(C) nos. 3435/2020, 3633/2020 and 3703/2020 are entitled to grace marks and re-evaluation of answer scripts: 48. The petitioners in the said writ petitions did not avail the opportunity of having their answer-scripts re-evaluated pursuant to advertisement dated 15.05.2020, by which due to Covid-19 situation, the respondent authorities had extended the time to apply for re-evaluation. Therefore, as the alleged wrong answer-key was not brought to the notice of the TET Empowered Committee, they did not have any occasion to ask for any clarification from the resource University. Therefore, due to laches on part of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 3633/2020 and 3703/2020, by not applying for re-evaluation, the petitioners therein are not found entitled to any equitable relief. Reliefs : 49. The four sets of writ petitions are decided as follows:- a. W.P.(C) Nos. 4455/2020, 3739/2020, 3881/2020, 4038/2020, 4065/2020, 4109/2020, 4189/2020, 4192/2020, 4198/2020, 4303/2020, 4361/2020, 4377/2020 and 978/2021, where challenge has been made against the grant of grace marks and prayer has been made for giving them preference over persons who were given grace marks are all allowed. Reliefs : 49. The four sets of writ petitions are decided as follows:- a. W.P.(C) Nos. 4455/2020, 3739/2020, 3881/2020, 4038/2020, 4065/2020, 4109/2020, 4189/2020, 4192/2020, 4198/2020, 4303/2020, 4361/2020, 4377/2020 and 978/2021, where challenge has been made against the grant of grace marks and prayer has been made for giving them preference over persons who were given grace marks are all allowed. The award of grace to the extent of 5(five) marks in either Part-I or Part-II to candidates who had qualified in either of the two parts but failed in one is held to be illegal. The respondent authorities would do the needful to recall such grace marks within a period of 2(two) months from service of a certified copy of this order. b. However, the award of grace marks of 1 (one) grace marks in respect of two questions (jumbled in four alphabetical series), viz., (i) Q. No. 74 in P-series; Q. No. 83 in Q-series; Q. No. 91 in R-series; and Q. No. 52 in S-series; and (ii) Q. No. 194 in P-series; Q. No. 198 in Q-series; Q. No. 177 in R-series; and Q. No. 184 in S-series, is held to be fully justified and saved because the resource University has admitted error in answer to those two questions. c. In respect of the second set of writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) 3882/2020, (i) the petitioners in the unreserved category, who had otherwise scored minimum 60%, and (ii) petitioners in the reserved category, who had otherwise scored minimum 55% in the aggregate and may not have scored 60%/55% in any one of two parts, are entitled to be declared as TET qualified, which would be in consonance with Rule 10(2) of the 2018 Rules read with Clause-9 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011. Resultantly, the respondent authorities are directed to do the exercise of revisiting the mark-sheets of all the candidates whose name/ roll number did not appear in the TET results declared on 04.03.2020, and if any candidates are found to have otherwise scored the minimum percentile marks of 60% and/or 55% (for unreserved/reserved category), all of such candidates be declared to be TET qualified in respect of examinations held on 19.01.2020, pursuant to educational advertisement dated 13.09.2019. The said exercise shall be carried out within the outer period of 2 (two) months from the date of service of certified copy of this order in the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. d. Owing to the reasons as discussed herein before, the petitioners in the third set and fourth set of writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) nos. 3435/2020, 3633/2020 and 3703/2020 are found not entitled to any relief and the said writ petitions fail and are dismissed. e. The needful in terms of this order shall be done within a period of 2(two) months from the date of service of a certified copy of this order on the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. 50. Later on, after the pronouncement of judgment, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, assisted by the learned instructing counsel has produced a copy of action plan bearing memo no. GB-EST/Advertisement (GT)/1/2021/135 dated 07.05.2022 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Assam by which certain timelines have been provided. The relevant bullet points as indicated in the said communication are extracted below : 1. The FINAL MERIT LIST of the selected candidates for the posts of Post Graduate Teacher, Graduate Teacher ( Arts / Science / Hindi / Sanskrit / ALT ) of provincialised Secondary Schools will be published in the official website at www.madhyamik.assam.gov.in on 11.05.2022. 2. The FINAL MERIT LISTS (PDF files and Excel Sheets) will be communicated to the 21 nos. Inspector of Schools through E - mail as well as WhatsApp on 11.05.2022. 3. On receipt of the FINAL MERIT LIST, the Inspector of Schools, will take printout of the merit list from PDF files and will take approval the final merit list from the District Level Committee on the very same day i.e. on 11.05.2022. 4. The Inspector of Schools of 21 Plain District will have to reach the DSE Office on 12.05.2022 and stay till 13.05.2022 along with the below mentioned documents / personnel for receiving approval of DSE, Assam on the final merit list duly recommended by the District Level Committee for both Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers separately and preparation of appointment letters thereof; i. Minutes (separate for PGT & GT) of the District Level Committee prepared on 11.05.2022. ii. Recommended List of selected candidates for both PGT and GT duly signed by all the Members of the District Level Committee. iii. ii. Recommended List of selected candidates for both PGT and GT duly signed by all the Members of the District Level Committee. iii. Covering letters prepared and signed by the Inspector of Schools. iv. Team of officials (at least two computer experts) and all other required Materials including 6 (six) nos. of files, Laptop, 2 (two) rims of Legal Size Paper, Seals of Inspector of Schools etc. 5. After obtaining approval of the final merit list from the DSE, Assam, the Inspector of Schools will prepare the appointment letters of the selected candidates in the office of undersigned on 12.05.2022 and 13.05.2013 and for this purpose, all Inspector of Schools must be present at the DSE Office on these two days. 6. Separate appointment letters (for PGT & GT) should be ready in the evening of 13.05.2022 positively. 7. The appointment letters will be distributed ceremonially to the appointees on 14.05.2022 in a centrally organized function at Guwahati. 8. After the ceremonial distribution of appointment letters, the selected candidates can download their appointment letters from the official website i.e. www.madhyamik.assam.gov.in in the evening of 14.05.2022. 9. The Inspector of Schools will receive and accept the JOINING REPORTS AND UNDERTAKINGS of the appointees as prescribed by the Finance (Budget) Department vide letter No. B.W.3 / Pt - II /1, dtd. 25.01.2005 regarding acceptance of "New Pension Scheme" as well as execution of a "BOND" between the "Inspector of Schools" and "Appointee" concerned on 18.05.2022 as per provision Govt. Office Memorandum No. ASE.626/ 2021/4, dtd. 06.04.2022 (Copy enclosed at Annexure-A) positively. 10. Both Final verification of testimonials/documents as well as Counseling for School-wise posting of the appointees will be done simultaneously in the office of the Inspector of Schools on 19.05.2022, 20.05.2022 and 21.05.2022 by the Inspector of Schools. 11. On the day of joining of the appointees (i.e. on 18.05.2022) at the office of the Inspector of Schools, the Inspector of Schools shall ensure the DISPLAY OF THE SCHEDULE AND VENUE for final verification of testimonials/documents as well as for counseling for School-wise posting on the OFFICE NOTICE BOARD for information of the appointees. 12. To display the category-wise, school -wise vacant posts during the Counseling session, the Inspector of Schools shall prepare a list of "NEED BASED SCHOOLS". 13. 12. To display the category-wise, school -wise vacant posts during the Counseling session, the Inspector of Schools shall prepare a list of "NEED BASED SCHOOLS". 13. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF NEED BASED SCHOOLS (BOTH PGT AND GT) ALONGWITH THE FORMATS ARE ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE "B" & "C" FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. 14. The Inspector of Schools shall ensure that all formalities i.e. FINAL VERIFICATION OF TESTIMONIALS, COUNSELLING FOR SCHOOL- WISE POSTING ORDERS AS WELL AS ACCEPTED AND REJECTED LISTS etc. must be completed within 19.05.2022, 20.05.2022 and 21.05.2022. 15. After issue of School-wise posting orders, the appointees will report to their respective Schools within 23.05.2022 and 24.05.2022 without fail. 16. The Inspector of Schools shall also properly supervise reporting/ joining of the appointees in their place of posting as per order. 17. The salary of the appointees will be counted from the date of joining in the respective Inspectorates i.e. w.e.f. 18.05.2022.” 51. Accordingly, it is submitted that if the authorities are required to comply with the directions of this Court to do the exercise within a period of 2(two) months from the date of service of a certified copy of this order on the said authority, i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, the timelines as mentioned in the communication dated 07.05.2022, is required to correspondingly postponed. 52. In respect of the point raised, Mr. S.M.T. Chistie along with Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department had obtained instructions and it is submitted that the timelines as provided in the communication dated 07.05.2022 is only indicative of verification process, and that the timelines were not for a final exercise of posting persons in the post of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher (Arts/Science/Hindi/Sanskrit/Alt.). It was submitted that appointment letters have already been issued. It is also submitted that the departmental authorities would like to go through the judgment and order of this Court passed today and to take an appropriate decision in this matter. 53. Considered the situation arising out of the communication by the Director, Secondary Education, Assam vide memo dated 07.05.2022. It was submitted that appointment letters have already been issued. It is also submitted that the departmental authorities would like to go through the judgment and order of this Court passed today and to take an appropriate decision in this matter. 53. Considered the situation arising out of the communication by the Director, Secondary Education, Assam vide memo dated 07.05.2022. In this regard the Court is of the considered opinion that if the said authority, i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam is proposing to comply with the judgment and order of this Court and re-visits the marks of candidates to ascertain whether they have scored 60%/55% in the aggregate, as indicated in this judgment, for which two months’ time has been granted for doing the needful. Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the Director of Secondary Education, Assam may go ahead with the process of verification. However, no final appointment would be made without undertaking the exercise as indicated in the reliefs as granted in this writ petition so as to prevent any uncertainty to prevail while carrying out such exercise. Therefore, even if any order of appointment has been issued, the same would be subject to the exercise to be done by the Director, Secondary Education, Assam. 54. The communication dated 07.05.2022 as produced by learned senior counsel for the petitioners is retained on record. 55. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above. 56. The parties are left to bear their own cost.