KRISHNA KUMAR SINGHA and ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

Heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department

of the Government of Assam. By the order dated 10.08.2017, service of notice on the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were accepted to be complete.

Further, office note dated 21.07.2014 indicates that the service of notice on respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are also complete. In spite of service of

notice, none appears for the said respondents.

An advertisement dated 10.10.2012 was issued by the Principal In-charge of Chaparmukh B.B Hansaria Higher Secondary School inviting

applications for filling up three posts of Grade-IV in the school. The petitioners along with others submitted their candidature pursuant to the

aforesaid advertisement. It is stated that the father of the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 earlier served as Grade-IV employees in the B.B Hansaria

Higher Secondary School, Chaparmukh and had retired from service in December, 2007, February, 2009 and December, 2005 respectively. The

interview was scheduled for being held on 18.10.2012, but the Selection Committee had decided to hold a written test and also interview on

16.12.2012. The petitioners along with others participated in the written test as well as the oral interview. Although, no results were declared, but

the petitioners came to know on 13.05.2013 that the respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were selected for the three posts of Grade-IV. Accordingly,

the petitioners sought for the required information under the RTI Act of 2005. Upon receiving the RTI information, the petitioners could learn that

the respondent No.8 Bitupaban Das is the son of the President of the Managing Committee of the school, the respondent No.9 Jatin Bora is a

close relative of the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the respondent No.10 Hiranya Bordoloi is a cousin of the Principal of the said

school. The appointment of the respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 have been assailed in this writ petition.

Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department has produced the record of the selection. From the record, it is

submitted that although the respondent No.8 is the son of the President of the Managing Committee of the School, but the President had rescued

himself from participating in the selection process and accordingly by a resolution dated 08.12.2012, another person namely Sri Jonardan Saikia

was nominated to be the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Further, the record does not indicate that the respondent No.10 is anyway related

to the Principal of the College.

In respect of the respondent No.9, Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a family tree of the father of the respondent

No.9. From the said family tree, it transpires that the father of the respondent No.9 and the mother of the wife of the President of the Selection

Committee are both siblings being the children of the same person. Accordingly, in relation, the respondent No.9 and the wife of the Chairman of

the Selection Committee would be first cousin being the sons and daughters of two siblings.

The respondent authorities have not disputed the aforesaid family tree presented by Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the respondent No.9 and the Chairman of the Selection Committee namely Sri Janardon Saikia are both

closely related to each other. Accordingly, the selection made by Sri Janadron Saikia as the Chairman of the Selection Committee of the

respondent No.9 stands vitiated.

In view of the aforesaid conclusion, this Court declines to interfere with the appointment of the respondent Nos. 8 and 10. But, in respect of the

respondent No.9, it is found that his selection by Sri Janardon Saikia being a close relative as indicated above is vitiated. Accordingly, the

appointment of the respondent No.9 is set aside. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of the family tree submitted by

Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners is kept on record.