JUDGMENT : (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) : Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner in the above noted writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents in the Secondary Education Department and Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 5 & 6 in WP(C)/2776/2020. WP(C)/2776/2020 2. The petitioner by instituting the present proceeding has assailed an order dated 03.03.2020, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, appointing the respondent no. 6, herein, as the Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School, Nalbari. The petitioner has also, in the present proceeding, assailed the selection as made in respect of the respondent no. 6 by the School Selection Committee and its approval by the State Selection Board, Assam. WP(C)/6004/2020 3. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to a communication dated 23.06.2020, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, wherein it was held that the degrees obtained by the petitioner were not acceptable and accordingly, his case for recruitment to the post of Principal, Belsor Higher Secondary School cannot be considered. 4. The issue involved in the above noted writ petitions being the same, both the writ petitions are taken up for consideration analogously; and the same was also consented to by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 5. As consented to by the learned counsel for the parties to the proceedings in both the above noted writ petitions, the present writ petitions are taken up for final consideration and disposal. 6. The issues involved in the above noted writ petitions being similar in nature, for the purpose of the present order, the facts available in WP(C)/2776/2020 is noticed and the parties are also denoted in the order, in terms of their placement in the said writ petition. 7. The petitioner, herein, has submitted that he was initially recruited as an Assistant Graduate Teacher on 16.08.1994 and posted at Solmara Higher Secondary School, Nalbari. The petitioner has further submitted that he was drawing his pay and allowances in the graduate scale of pay since the date of his initial appointment. 7. The petitioner, herein, has submitted that he was initially recruited as an Assistant Graduate Teacher on 16.08.1994 and posted at Solmara Higher Secondary School, Nalbari. The petitioner has further submitted that he was drawing his pay and allowances in the graduate scale of pay since the date of his initial appointment. The petitioner, in support of the fact that he possessed the requisite educational qualification for being authorized the graduate scale of pay, has contended that he had acquired his B. SC degree from Gauhati University in the year 1992 and thereafter, had acquired his M. A. degree in Assamese from the same University in the year 2012. The petitioner also contends that he had acquired his B. Ed degree from the same very University in the year 2017. The petitioner, in addition to the above qualifications so acquired by him, had also pursued a course of study to acquire his B. A. degree from CMJ University in the year 2012, as well as a B. Ed degree from Singhania University in the year 2011. 8. A vacancy being available against the post of Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School, an advertisement for the purpose of recruitment against the said post by way of direct recruitment came to be issued in the month of December, 2018. The petitioner being eligible for being considered for recruitment to the post of Principal in a provincialized Higher Secondary School, submitted his application along with that of the respondent no. 6, herein, in pursuance to the said advertisement. It is contended that the interview for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Principal was scheduled on 03.01.2019; and the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 and three other candidates appeared in the said interview. 9. On conclusion of the said process of interview, the petitioner having come to learn that the documents pertaining to his educational and professional qualification, were not considered in the manner required and the selection to have been so done in violation of the guidelines as laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018, proceeded to submit an application in the matter before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 04.02.2019 and therein, by highlighting that the respondent no. 6 was placed in the first position by giving him 18 marks while the petitioner was so placed in the third position by giving him 16 marks, by the School Selection Committee, prayed for an enquiry into the matter. 10. In pursuance to the submission of the said representation by the petitioner, it is seen that a hearing was so held in the matter on 19.02.2019. Thereafter, the State Selection Board had vide order dated 21.02.2019, required the petitioner to submit copies of his ACRs for the years 2017 and 2018, signed by the Principal of the school in which he was working and duly counter-signed by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari. The Member Secretary of the School Selection Committee, Belsor Higher Secondary School was also directed to take necessary steps for obtaining the said documents from the concerned authority and to submit the same before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam within 07 days. 11. The respondent no. 5, herein, vide a communication dated 26.02.2019, required the petitioner to submit the relevant documents as contained in the order dated 21.02.2019 on/or before 27.02.2019. It is contended that the petitioner again in compliance with the direction so issued to him, submitted the copies of his ACRs for the year 2017 and 2018 on 26.02.2019. The petitioner, in response to a RTI application preferred by him in the matter, was furnished by the respondent no. 2, vide a communication dated 25.09.2019, a copy of the Comparative Statement so prepared by the School Selection Committee. 12. Poised thus; and also given the irregularities involved in the selection process involved, coming to his notice, on receipt of a copy of the Comparative Statement, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being No. WP(C)/7579/201, praying for declaration of the results of the interview so held for the post of Principal, Belsor Higher Secondary School, Belsor. 13. This Court, vide order dated 04.10.2019, on consideration of the issue involved, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the State Selection Board, Assam to bring the entire process to its logical conclusion within a period of 02 months. 13. This Court, vide order dated 04.10.2019, on consideration of the issue involved, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the State Selection Board, Assam to bring the entire process to its logical conclusion within a period of 02 months. The petitioner, in pursuance to the direction as passed by this Court, vide the said order dated 04.10.2019, proceeded vide his representation dated 16.10.2019, to place before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam the illegalities as committed by the School Selection Committee in recommending the name of the respondent no. 6 for the post of Principal. The petitioner, thereafter, again approached this Court, by way of instituting WP(C)/8167/2019 inter-alia, assailing therein, the recommendation as made by the School Selection Committee, as well as the Comparative Statement as prepared by the Committee in this connection. This Court, vide order dated 06.11.2019, on consideration of the issues so arising therein, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the petitioner herein, to approach the State Government by raising the grievances he had in the matter with a further direction that in the event, the issues raised by the petitioner is found to be valid, the State authorities would review the recommendation made in respect of the respondent no. 6, both by the School Selection Committee as well as State Selection Board and pass appropriate orders in this direction. It was further provided that before a decision is taken by the State authorities, a hearing would be so extended to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. 14. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of the directions passed by this Court vide the order dated 06.11.2019, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department vide a communication dated 20.12.2019, scheduled a hearing in the matter on 04.01.2020 and required the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 as well as the school authorities to appear before him. The petitioner contends that the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secondary Education Department directed the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, to produce the ACRs of the 03 empanelled candidates for the last two years i.e., 2017 and 2018 in a sealed cover. The Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, vide its communication dated 12.02.2020, required the Principal of Solmara Higher Secondary School to furnish the ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2017 and 2018. 15. The Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, vide its communication dated 12.02.2020, required the Principal of Solmara Higher Secondary School to furnish the ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2017 and 2018. 15. On receipt of the ACRs of the 03 empanelled candidates, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari, vide his communication dated 25.02.2020, forwarded the same to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department for further processing. 16. When the said issue was under consideration, the petitioner came across an order dated 03.03.2020, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School, Belsor, on regular basis. 17. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner had instituted WP(C)/2776/2020, assailing the said appointment of the respondent no. 6 as well as the recommendation made in his favour by the School Selection Committee and the State Selection Board. 18. It is to be noted that the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department in terms of the directions as passed by this Court vide the order dated 06.11.2019, in WP(C)/8167/2019 had proceeded to issue a communication dated 23.06.2020; to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and therein, held the case of the petitioner for recruitment against a post of Principal in provincialised Higher Secondary School cannot be considered, on the ground that the petitioner had contended that the petitioner having acquired his degree qualification from CMJ University and his B. Ed degree from Singhania University, both the Universities not being recognized by the Government of Assam, the degrees as obtained by the petitioner was held to be not acceptable. 19. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in Secondary Education Department in the said communication dated 23.06.2020, had further noted that the petitioner although had cleared his B. Sc course from Gauhati University and also had acquired his B. Ed degree, it was not understood as to why the petitioner had to acquire his B. Ed degree twice. The petitioner, on coming across the said communication dated 23.06.2020, proceeded to institute WP(C)/6004/2020, assailing the same. 20. Mr. The petitioner, on coming across the said communication dated 23.06.2020, proceeded to institute WP(C)/6004/2020, assailing the same. 20. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the above noted writ petitions has drawn the attention of this Court to the Comparative Statement as prepared in the matter, by the School Managing Committee and has contended therein, that the petitioner was not given any marks under the column ‘Integrity and Personality’ for which 02 marks were earmarked in terms of the guidelines so contained in the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018. Further, the petitioner was not given any marks under the heading ‘Administrative Ability’ and accordingly, the petitioner was given a total of 16 marks in the said interview while the respondent no. 6 was so given 18 marks. 21. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondent no. 6, herein, was allowed to hold the charge of the Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School only w.e.f. 31.12.2018 and the interview was so held on 03.01.2019 and accordingly, for a period of around 04 days, the petitioner was given 02 marks under the column ‘Experience as In-charge Principal’, which mandates 01 marks for each year of experience, subject to the maximum of 03 marks in terms of the guidelines contained in the OM dated 26.12.2018. It is the contention of Mr. Borthakur, that the respondent no. 6 having only worked for 04 days as a Principal In-charge, he was not entitled to any marks in terms of the said provisions of the Office Memorandum and accordingly, the said 02 marks is required to be deducted, which would also bring the respondent no. 6 to be marked 16 marks in the said selection process. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel by referring to the ACRs available in the matter, submits that he was graded as “Good” therein, for both the years i.e. 2017 and 2018 and accordingly, he was entitled to 02 marks under the heading ‘Integrity and Personality’. The 02 marks been provided to the petitioner, his marks in the said interview would now be raised to 18 and accordingly, he would be placed at Serial No. 1. Mr. The 02 marks been provided to the petitioner, his marks in the said interview would now be raised to 18 and accordingly, he would be placed at Serial No. 1. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel has further submitted that the ACRs of the petitioner was duly collected by the respondent authorities in terms of the directions passed by the State Selection Board, vide its order dated 21.02.2019, however, the ACRs so received were not considered. 22. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, by referring to the communication dated 23.06.2020, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, under challenge in WP(C)/6004/2020 has submitted that the contentions raised in the said communication is clearly perverse. It is submitted by Mr. Borthakur, that the respondent authorities had lost sight of the fact that the petitioner, since the date of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 16.08.1994, was being authorized his pay and allowances in the graduate scale of pay, which is only permissible in the event the petitioner had acquired his graduation qualification before the date of his appointment. Mr. Borthakur, has by referring to the certificates issued by the Gauhati University in this connection, has contended that the petitioner has acquired his B. Sc degree in the year 1992 from Gauhati University and the same is not disputed. 23. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further by referring to the M. A. certificate issued by the Gauhati University, contended that the petitioner had acquired the said degree in the year 2012 from Gauhati University and likewise, the petitioner had also acquired his B. Ed qualification in the year 2017 from Gauhati University. Mr. Borthakur submits that the courses pursued by him from CMJ University as well as with Singhania University would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, the petitioner had already acquired the requisite minimum qualification for being considered for recruitment to the post of Principal of a provincialised Higher Secondary School and the same could not have been ignored by the respondent authorities. Mr. Borthakur, has submitted that the communication dated 26.06.2020 was so issued after the order dated 03.03.2020, appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the school in question. Mr. Mr. Borthakur, has submitted that the communication dated 26.06.2020 was so issued after the order dated 03.03.2020, appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the school in question. Mr. Borthakur, further reveals that the communication dated 23.06.2020 and the decision so arrived at therein, by the authorities concerned, also goes to reveal that the review as directed by this Court vide the order dated 06.11.2019 in WP(C)/8167/2019 was not complete on the date when the said order dated 03.03.2020, was so issued, appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School and accordingly, he submits that the order dated 03.03.2020, appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the school in question requires to be interfered, with a further direction for a fresh consideration of the candidates so involved for appointment of the selected candidates against the post of Principal of the school in question. 24. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Secondary Education, Assam has at the outset submitted that the recommendations as made by the School Selection Committee in favour of the respondent no. 6 were considered by the State Selection Board and upon due consideration of the records, the name of the respondent no. 6 came to be recommended for appointment as Principal of the School in question. The Government, on consideration of the matter, had granted its approval to such recommendations vide the communication dated 28.02.2020 and thereafter, the Director had proceeded to appoint the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the School in question, vide the order dated 03.03.2020. 25. Mr. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel has contended that the petitioner having acquired his B. A. examination from CMJ university in the year 2012 and also having cleared his B.Ed from Singhania university in the year 2011, the said universities not being recognized, the degree obtained by the petitioner from the aforesaid universities were held to be not acceptable and accordingly, the Government had vide communication 23.06.2020; held the petitioner not to be eligible for consideration for recruitment against the post of Principal in a provincialised college. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner not being so eligible for being considered, there exists no error in the appointment of the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the school in question. 26. Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel has contended that the respondents no. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner not being so eligible for being considered, there exists no error in the appointment of the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the school in question. 26. Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel has contended that the respondents no. 5 & 6 has contended that the School Selection Committee had awarded marks to the candidates appearing in the selection, strictly, in accordance with the guidelines as laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018. It is further contended that the petitioner not having submitted his original ACRs for the requisite years, he was not awarded any marks for the same under the appropriate heads. However, the respondent no. 6 having submitted his ACRs for the relevant period, he was awarded 02 marks, inasmuch as, the respondent no. 6 was graded as “Very Good” in the ACR, relevant for the purpose. It was further contended that the respondent no. 6 having held the charge of the post of Principal w.e.f. 31.12.2018, the Selection Committee, in its discretion had awarded 02 marks to the respondent no. 6 for the experience so garnered by him in the matter. It was further contended that if it is to be held that the respondent no. 6 did not have the experience of 02 years as the Principal of the said school and 01 mark is so deducted, still the respondent no. 6 would score 17 marks, placing him at Serial No. 1 of the said selection. 27. Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 5 & 6 submits that the ACRs of the petitioner, herein, are all fabricated and the existence of 02 different sets of ACRs creates a doubt with regard to the authenticity of the same and accordingly, the petitioner would not be entitled to any marks against the same. Mr. Sharma, further submits that no malafide having been alleged against the School Selection Committee members by the petitioner in the present proceedings, the award of marks by the said School Selection Committee, against various heads, as mandated to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, herein, cannot be questioned by the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that this Court would not sit on appeal over the decision of the School Selection Committee. In the above premises, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, submits that the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6, herein, cannot be questioned by the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that this Court would not sit on appeal over the decision of the School Selection Committee. In the above premises, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, submits that the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 would not call for any interference from this Court. 28. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 29. For the purpose of the consideration so made in the present proceeding, the facts as involved in WP(C)/2776/2020, as well as the placement of the parties, therein, are being continued to be so reckoned. 30. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 had participated in a recruitment process for appointment against the post of Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School and the interview for the same was so held by the School Selection Committee on 03.01.2019. The procedure for conducting of the said selection by the School Selection Committee is governed by the guidelines so formulated vide the OM dated 26.12.2018. The OM in question, had stipulated the marks to be awarded under various headings for the purpose of the selection in question. In view of the dispute raised in the present proceedings, it is the marking as made by the said School Selection Committee against the headings ‘Administrative ability, ‘Integrity and personality’ as well as ‘Experience’, which is required to be so examined by this Court. 31. With regard to the ‘Administrative ability’, the OM dated 26.12.2018 mandates that a candidate would be entitled to a maximum of 03 marks, out of which, for a State Award 01 mark is so prescribed and for a National Award or, for both State and National Awards 02 marks is so mandated. Further, the Awards and Honors begotten by the Schools, its students, Teachers in Academic, Sports, Social Cultural events organized in State or National level by any organization Government or Private is also reckonable for marking under the heading ‘Administrative ability’. Further, a candidate is also entitled to be so marked for its participation in academic events/Seminars, Articles contributed by him in Magazines and Journals/Newspapers/Periodicals on academic matters, for which 1 marks is so prescribed. Further, a candidate is also entitled to be so marked for its participation in academic events/Seminars, Articles contributed by him in Magazines and Journals/Newspapers/Periodicals on academic matters, for which 1 marks is so prescribed. Accordingly, it is seen that for an award received, a maximum of 02 marks is so prescribed and for the other components, a further one mark is so mandated and accordingly, under the ‘Administrative ability’ 03 marks have been prescribed. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was awarded with an award by an organization, which he contends to be an organization working at national level. However, in spite of the said award received by him from the said organization, being brought to the notice of the School Selection Committee, no mark with regard to that came to be awarded to the petitioner against the heading “Administrative ability”. The School Selection Committee has also not assigned any reason as to why the petitioner would not be entitled to any marks for the said award received by him. 32. The petitioner further, questions the mark so awarded to him under the heading ‘Integrity and personality’. In terms of the OM dated 26.12.2018, the marking under the heading ‘Integrity and personality’ for which 02 marks have been assigned is so based on the ACRs of the candidates, participating in the selection process for the last 02 years, preceding the order of the selection. 33. In terms of the markings mandated under the heading “Integrity and personality” for every ACR graded as “Good” 01 mark is awarded and for every grading above “Very Good” 02 marks is mandated. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he had submitted his ACRs, duly prepared by the respondent authorities in the manner required before the School Selection Committee, on the date of the interview. However, the same was not reckoned. It is seen that the State Selection Board, on the matter being placed before it had, vide its order dated 21.02.2019, required the furnishing of the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2017 & 2018. In pursuance to the said direction, it is seen that the ACRs of the petitioner was received by the Secretary, School Selection Committee on 26.02.2012 and the same reflected that the petitioner in his ACRs for the years 2017 and 2018 was graded as “Good”. In pursuance to the said direction, it is seen that the ACRs of the petitioner was received by the Secretary, School Selection Committee on 26.02.2012 and the same reflected that the petitioner in his ACRs for the years 2017 and 2018 was graded as “Good”. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to 01 mark in terms of the provisions of the guidelines as formulated under the OM dated 26.12.2018. However, neither the School Selection Committee nor subsequently, the State Selection Board, proceeded to award any marks to the petitioner against the heading “Integrity and personality” although the ACRs of the petitioner was before them. The State Selection Board, Assam, vide an order dated 20.09.2019, in this connection had proceeded to record a finding that in respect of the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2017-2018, there were two different sets of ACRs, which was contended to be not acceptable. It is to be noted that the ACRs in question are not prepared by the teacher concerned but, are the report, so prepared by the Principal of the school in question and thereafter, counter-signed by the jurisdictional Inspector of schools. 34. In that view of the matter, it was for the respondent authorities to explain as to why two different sets of ACRs came into existence, insofar as the petitioner is concerned and the said issued was required to be resolved before denying to the petitioner his due marks under the column ‘Integrity and personality’. In the event, the petitioner was given even minimum marks as due under the headings ‘Administrative ability’, the award so begotten by him was found to be so awarded by a recognized organization working in the National Level and also the marks against his ACRs under the heading ‘Integrity and Personality’, the marks of the petitioner would have increased beyond 16. 35. Having noticed the above positions and the denying marks to the petitioner under the column ‘Administrative ability’ and also under the column ‘Integrity and personality’; this Court would now examine the marks awarded to the respondent no. 6, under the ‘Experience’ column. 36. The respondent no. 6 was given 02 marks under the column ‘Experience’ for his purported experience as In-charge Principal. 6, under the ‘Experience’ column. 36. The respondent no. 6 was given 02 marks under the column ‘Experience’ for his purported experience as In-charge Principal. In terms of the OM dated 26.12.2018, for experience as an In-charge Principal, it is mandated that the candidate concerned shall receive 01 mark for each year of experience, subject to the maximum of 03 marks. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as the Principal In-charge of the school in question by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, only vide an order dated 31.12.2018 i.e., around about 04 days prior to the selection in question. Accordingly, it can be safely construed that the respondent no. 6 did not have the requisite experience in terms of the prescription made in this connection, under the OM dated 26.12.2018 and he having not completed one year of service as an In-charge Principal of the school, could not have been even granted 01 mark under the said column. Accordingly, the 02 marks as granted to the respondent no. 6 is required to be deducted and thereby, the total marks scored by the respondent no. 6 in the selection process would be reduced to 16. 37. Having noted the marks, the respondent no. 6 stand to scored in the selection process after deduction of the 02 marks given to him in excess, which he was not entitled, under the column ‘Experience’ and also noticing that even if 01 mark is given to the petitioner under the heading ‘Integrity and Personality’, the marks of the petitioner would be raised to 17 and accordingly, he would be placed at Serial No. 1. 38. Having noticed the said position, this Court is of the considered view that the selection in question was not so conducted in accordance with the stipulations as set out in the guidelines under the OM dated 26.12.2018 and accordingly, the recommendation of the School Selection Committee as made in the matter along with its approval by the State Selection Board, requires to be interfered with. Accordingly, the order dated 03.03.2020, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School cannot be sustained and the same also calls for an interference. 39. Accordingly, the order dated 03.03.2020, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School cannot be sustained and the same also calls for an interference. 39. The above conclusions having been drawn, this Court would now examine the contentions made by the State Selection Board in its order dated 20.09.2019. 40. The State Selection Board in its said order dated 20.09.2019, had noticed that 2(two) different sets of ACRs of the petitioner was available on record and the same was held to be unacceptable. A perusal of the two sets of ACRs would go to reveal that the second set of ACRs so available was counter-signed by the Inspector of Schools, only on 24.02.2020 i.e. much after the date of selection, which was held on 03.01.2019. Accordingly, the earlier ACRs of the petitioner, which was contended to be submitted by him and also forwarded by the respondent authorities in terms of the order dated 21.02.2019, passed by the State Selection Board, is the ACR that is to be reckoned and therein, the petitioner having been graded as “Good” by the Reviewing Authority, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded marks basing on the said ACRs, which is now available to the Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The subsequent ACR, being one prepared much after the selection process was conducted i.e. only on 24.02.2020, would not mandate a consideration. Further, the School Selection Committee had raised doubt with regard to the fact that the petitioner had acquired his B. Ed degree twice. The said conclusion on the face of it is not permissible, inasmuch as, the authorities had disputed the B. Ed degree acquired by the petitioner from Gauhati University. 41. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the contentions as raised by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Secondary Education, Assam, in the communication dated 23.06.2020. 42. A perusal of the said communication dated 23.06.2020, would go to show that the same was so issued in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in WP(C)/8167/2019. of Assam in the Secondary Education, Assam, in the communication dated 23.06.2020. 42. A perusal of the said communication dated 23.06.2020, would go to show that the same was so issued in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in WP(C)/8167/2019. This Court, vide the order dated 06.11.2019 in WP(C)/8167/2019, had passed the following directions:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also having perused the materials on record, this Court is of the view that it will be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the State Government raising all these grievances so that in the event, the issue relating to the petitioner is found to be valid, the State authorities will review the recommendation made by the school as well as by the State Selection Board and pass appropriate orders in this regard. While doing so, the State authorities will also hear both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, who would be at liberty to submit necessary representation along with the supporting documents, before passing any final order in this regard. Till such exercise is completed, no appointment order shall be issued by the State authorities for appointment to the post of Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School at Nalbari.” 43. A perusal of the directions as passed by this Court, vide the said order dated 06.11.2019, would go to show that the authorities were required to review the recommendation as made by the School Selection Committee, as well as the State Selection Board in the case of the respondent no. 6 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, it was further mandated that till the process of review as directed, is completed, no appointment shall be issued by the State authorities for appointment of a candidate against the post of Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School. It is seen that the respondent authorities, before conclusion of the exercise as required to be carried out by this Court, vide its order dated 06.11.2019, had proceeded to issue the order dated 03.03.2020. It is only around 03(three) months after the appointment of the respondent no. 6 was so effected as the Principal of the school in question, vide the order dated 03.03.2020, the respondent authorities proceeded to conclude the review as directed by this Court in the matter. It is only around 03(three) months after the appointment of the respondent no. 6 was so effected as the Principal of the school in question, vide the order dated 03.03.2020, the respondent authorities proceeded to conclude the review as directed by this Court in the matter. Accordingly, on the said count also, the order dated 03.03.2020, appointing the petitioner as the Principal of the school in question also cannot be sustained. 44. A perusal of the order dated 23.06.2020, would further go to reveal that the Government had initially accorded approval for appointment of the respondent no. 6 as the regular Principal of the school in question, vide the communication dated 28.02.2020. It was only after the approval was so granted that the original file of the selection in question was placed before the respondent authorities along with the ACRs of the candidates empanelled from the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari and accordingly, the matter was re-examined. It is contended in the said communication that the petitioner had appeared in the B. A. examination from CMJ University in the year 2012 and also, it was contended that the petitioner had passed his B. Ed examination twice. It was noted that the petitioner had passed his B. Ed examination from Singhania University in the year 2011 and again had passed the same examination from Gauhati University in the year 2017 and interestingly, it was noticed that it was not known as to why the petitioner had acquired his B.Ed degree twice. 45. Having noticed the above position, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department, proceeded to hold that since CMJ University and Singhania University are not recognized by the Government, the degree obtained by the petitioner from the said Universities, would not be acceptable and accordingly, it was held that the case of the petitioner for recruitment as Principal of the school in question would not be mandated to be so considered. The communication dated 23.06.2020 is only in the form of issuance of a justification for the approval so granted by the respondent authorities to the selection of the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the school in question. 46. The communication dated 23.06.2020 is only in the form of issuance of a justification for the approval so granted by the respondent authorities to the selection of the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the school in question. 46. The grounds as assigned in the communication dated 23.06.2020, the respondent authorities while holding that the degrees obtained by the petitioner from CMJ University and Singhania University were not acceptable, had not dealt with the fact that the petitioner also had obtained his B. A. degree, M. A. degree and B. Ed degree from the Gauhati University. It may also be noted that the degrees as obtained in the matter from the Gauhati University by the petitioner were not held by the authorities to be invalid in any manner. Accordingly, the justification as given in the communication dated 23.06.2020 for rejection of the case of the petitioner are nothing but justifications given to give coverage to the illegality committed in appointing the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the said school and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the communication dated 23.06.2020 cannot be sustained and also would call for an interference. 47. In view of the conclusions as reached herein above, this Court passes the following directions:- I. The selection as conducted by the School Selection Committee in respect of the post of Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School, Belsor is set aside. The approval as granted to such selection by the State Selection Board also would stand set aside. II. Consequently, the order dated 03.03.2020, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and the approval thereto, given by the Government in the Secondary Education Department, towards appointing the petitioner as the Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School, would also stand set aside. III. For the reasons as assigned herein above, the communication dated 23.06.2020, would also now stand set aside. IV. The appointment of the respondent no. 6 having been so set aside, the charge of the post of Principal, Belsor Higher Secondary School shall now be held by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari, with immediate effect. III. For the reasons as assigned herein above, the communication dated 23.06.2020, would also now stand set aside. IV. The appointment of the respondent no. 6 having been so set aside, the charge of the post of Principal, Belsor Higher Secondary School shall now be held by the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari, with immediate effect. The respondent authorities are now directed to carry out a review selection amongst the candidates so participating in pursuance to the advertisement, issued in the month of December, 2018 for the post of Principal of Belsor Higher Secondary School and therein, conduct the selection in question, strictly, in accordance with the prescriptions as made in this connection, vide the OM dated 26.12.2018. V. The Selection Committee so involved while making the selections shall also keep in view the observations made herein above by this Court, in the present order, pertaining to the manner in which the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 were so marked by the School Selection Committee so held on 03.01.2019, against the headings “Integrity and personality” and “Experience”. VI. The School Selection Committee while considering the case of the petitioner for awarding of marks against the heading “Administrative ability” shall consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be awarded any marks for the “Dr. Ambedkar Fellowship Sanman-2008” given to him by the “Bharatiya Dalit Sahitya Academy” and if on consideration, the petitioner is found not to be eligible for award of any marks in this connection, assign reasons for the same. VII. The selection committee while re-considering the case of the candidates so appearing before it, in pursuance to the advertisement dated December, 2018, shall not award any marks to the respondent no. 6 against the experience garnered by him as the Principal In-charge of the school in question. VIII. The School Selection Committee shall consider the ACRs of the petitioner as available at Annexure-6 to the writ petition and not the subsequent ACRs so prepared in his case, on 24.02.2020. IX. The said selection shall now be so conducted and concluded by the respondent authorities within a period of 03(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. IX. The said selection shall now be so conducted and concluded by the respondent authorities within a period of 03(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. X. The date of interview of the selection process shall be communicated to all the candidates who had originally participated in the selection process, provided they continued to remain in service and as on the date, when such notice is so issued. 48. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions being WP(C)/2776/2020 and WP(C)/6004/2020, stand disposed of.