Himangshu Barman, Sasanka Barman and Sanjeev Barman vs The State of Assam and Others Lalbabu Barman and Shri Silpi Barman Vs The State of Assam, The Director of Elementary Education and Deputy Inspector of Schools

Hrishikesh Roy, J.—Heard Ms. M. Deori, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the 3 cases. The respondents are represented by Ms. P. Chakraborty, Standing Counsel, Education. The petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribe (P) Category. They project that 10 Scheduled Tribe (Plains) [hereinafter referred to as "ST (Plains)"] vacancies of Teachers in L.P. & M.E. Schools were advertised in Hailakandi District, through Employment Notice dated 3rd July 2005 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and the petitioners offered their candidature for the ST (Plains) vacancies. They are aggrieved by the appointment of the private respondents who belong to the Scheduled Tribe (Hills) [hereinafter referred to as "ST (Hills)"] Category, against the posts advertised for ST (Plains) category. All the cases are being considered through analogous hearing as common issues are raised in all the 3 cases. The D.I. of Schools, Hailakandi has filed counter affidavit and the departmental lawyer submits that the stand of the respondents may be gathered from the counter affidavit filed in the WP(C) 644/2006.

Ms. P. Chakraborty, Standing Counsel projects that although in the Employment Notice, 10 posts were earmarked for ST (Plains) Category and 1 for ST (Hills) Category, but after re-consideration of the population pattern in the area, a proposal was submitted by the District Selection Board for Reviewing the break-up of the vacancies for different reserve category candidates. Thereafter approval of the Government was secured and the break-up of the reserved category posts was modified. The vacancies of the ST (Plains) Category was reduced from 10 to 5 and vacancy for ST (Hills) Category was increased from 1 to 6. These changes were approved by the Government and only thereafter the Selection Board made the recruitment exercise with the understanding that 5 posts are earmarked for ST (Plains) Category and 6 posts are meant for ST (Hills) Category. On this basis, Select List was prepared and 5 candidates of ST (Plains) Category and 6 candidates of ST (Hills) Category were appointed for the post(s) earmarked for their respective Categories. The bona fide of the exercise undertaken by the State Government is not being questioned by the petitioners. As the earmarking of vacancies for the reserved Categories was done on the basis of the population pattern in the District and the exercise was carried out prior to selection, no overlapping had occurred. In this backdrop the petitioners being in the ST (Plains) Category are disentitled to challenge the appointment made to posts, reserved for the ST (Hills) Category candidates. Accordingly I hold that appointment of the private respondents to the vacancies earmarked for ST (Hills) Category should be allowed to stand. Consequently the 3 writ petitions are dismissed without any order on cost.