WP(C)/2299/2026 of NAMITA BAISHYA AND 10 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 17 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 18-18.06.2026

1. Heard Mr. S. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. I. Alom, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the Notification dated 17.06.2025, passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, whereby, the applicants, pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.12.2023, who have successfully submitted their online application with 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education (“D.EI.Ed.”) from the National Institute of Open Schooling (in short ‘NIOS’) are directed to attend the second phase of physical document verification with documents and one document in original and one set of all documents for the proof of in-service teacher as on 10.08.2017.

3. The petitioners are working as teachers in private, Government-aided and unaided schools in the State of Assam, having the experience of teaching in lower primary and upper primary schools who have completed the 18 months D.EI.Ed. through the open and distance learning school from NIOS.

4. By an Advertisement dated 26.12.2023, the Director Elementary Education, Assam has invited online applications for filling up of 3800 vacancies of Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary schools and 1750 vacancies of Assistant Teacher, Science Teacher and Hindi Teacher in Upper Primary schools. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners have applied for recruitment to the aforesaid posts.

5. Vide a Notice dated 02.01.2024, the candidates who have obtained 18 months D.EI.Ed. from NIOS were disqualified. However, subsequently, 18 months D.EI.Ed. for in-service Teachers as on 10.08.2017 was held valid in view of the order dated 10.12.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath & Ors –vs- State of Uttarakhand & Ors. in Review Petition of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 7872/2023.

6. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued the impugned Notification dated 17.06.2025 purportedly in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath (supra), directing the applicants who have successfully completed their online applications with 18 months D.EL.Ed, from NIOS pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.12.2023 to attend the 2nd phase of physical Document Verification with the following documents in originals and one photocopy set of all documents for the proof of In service Teacher:

1. Paper related to proof of "IN SERVICE" as on 10.08.2017 viz -

a) Appointment Letter & Accepted Joining Report of the applicant.

b) Minutes of the School Managing Committee (SMC) of the school in respect of appointment of the applicant concerned.

c) Photocopy of the Attendance Register of the school during the Service period of the applicant duly countersigned by the Head of the Institutions.

d) Certificate issued by the school authority, specifying the service of the applicant in the school as on 10.08.2017.

e) Salary Statements stating the Pay Band, Basic Pay, DA and other allowances of the applicant for the entire service period.

f) UDISE records as a proof that the applicant was in service as on 10/08/2017.

2. Admission Records / Admission Slip of D.El.Ed course through NIOS.

3. 18 Months D.El.Ed. Certificates and Mark Sheet through NIOS of the applicant (complete before 01.04.2019).

7. The petitioners while accepting the requirement to prove their eligibility by submitting the required documents, including the qualifications, as a proof of in- service, challenges the imposition and demand of additional documents by the impugned Notification on the ground that the same are irrelevant, arbitrary and without any legal or rational basis. The petitioner contends that the introduction of additional documents by the impugned notification are neither part of the statutory recruitment rules nor mandated by any judgment, which amounts to rewriting the eligibility condition thereby, causing undue hardships and grave prejudice to otherwise eligible and meritorious candidates.

8. When the matter is taken up today, it is stated at the Bar that a similar issue has been considered and settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rupam Roy & 97 ors.vs- State of Assam & ors in WA/ 345/2025 wherein the Division Bench has observed that the applications of the appellants/applicants shall be verified by the State on the basis of the documents furnished by them and, if some of the documents demanded by way of the Notification dated 17.06.2025 (which is impugned herein) are not furnished, the same will be verified from the State records/database and, in the event of the rejection of their applications, each of the appellants/applicants shall be communicated the reason(s) for such rejection.

9. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted in unison that in view of the order dated 24.03.2026, passed in WA/345/2025 by the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition may be disposed of by providing the similar relief.

10. Upon consideration of the matter, it is noticed that some candidates have approached this Court by way of writ petition being WP © /3794/2025 which was dismissed by an order dated 24.09.2025 against which the writ appeal being WA/345/2025 was filed. By an order dated 24.03.2026, the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the aforesaid writ appeal. The relevant paragraph are reproduced herein:

“ The appellants/applicants have challenged the judgment and have sought to have the notification dated 17.06.2025 quashed and a direction to be issued to the State to allow them to participate in the examination/selection process without submitting any additional documents and also to keep as many number of posts vacant as are the number of the appellants and the applicants in the Interlocutory Applications listed with this appeal. Initially, several contentions were raised in support of the appeal; that such notification lacked the statutory backing, as teacher’s qualification and “in-service training” fall under the exclusive/occupied field of the Union of India under the RTE Act, 2009 read with the NCTE Regulations and MHRD letter dated 03.08.2017; that the impugned notification amounted to change in the rules of the game midway of the process, practically creating new eligibility conditions and putting the appellants/applicants, who are the teachers from private/un-aided schools, in an absolutely difficult position as compared to the teachers in government schools. The appellants/applicants have also questioned the legitimacy and futility of having a double filter just to assess the bona fides of the appellants/applicants as participants in the selection process. The appellants and the applicants are in unison in submitting that they have legitimate expectation that with their diploma obtained from the NIOS, they would be permitted to apply against the advertisement for recruitment and would not be subjected to any further scrutiny. The learned Single Judge decided such challenge on the anvil of the competence of the State to issue the notification dated 17.06.2025, asking for additional documents for verifying the eligibility criteria; whether these documents, demanded vide the notification impugned, amounted to setting a new benchmark for eligibility or was it only a verification mechanism; and whether the demand for such additional documents was impossible to comply with. Referring to the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge opined that the impugned notification was only a necessary verification mechanism to implement the NCTE guidelines and the Supreme Court’s direction and it did not, in any way, create new eligibility condition. The insistence on the documents, according to the learned Single Judge, was very reasonable to prevent any fraud and, in the absence of any manifest arbitrariness having been shown by the petitioners/ appellants, any interference by the court was unwarranted. During the course of the arguments, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior Advocate representing the appellants submitted that the appellants have no objection in submitting the documents available with them. However, as all the additional documents demanded vide the notification dated 17.06.2025 are not available with the appellants, they would be satisfied if the documents, which they are not in possession of, are verified by the State from the State archive. After such verification, in case the candidature of the appellants are not found to be genuine and are rejected, they ought to be intimated about the reason for the rejection of their application. Later, Mr. M. Kalra, learned Advocate for the applicants in these Interlocutory Applications, as per instructions from his clients, also adopted the arguments of Mr. K. N. Choudhury and agreed to the proposition with the expectation that the additional document(s), which the

applicants are not in possession of, shall be looked for by the State from its records for further assessing and verifying their bona fide candidature and, in the case of rejection of their applications, they shall be intimated about the reason(s) thereof. The learned Advocate General, Assam, though initially contested the appeal and the Interlocutory Applications on merits, but agreed that the applications of the appellants/applicants shall be verified by the State and whatever documents, as demanded vide the notification dated 17.06.2025, are not produced by the appellants/ applicants, the same shall be verified from the State records/database and in case their applications are rejected for the reason of the same having been found to be not genuine, or not meeting the eligibility criteria, the reason for rejection of their applications shall be intimated to them. Thus, with such undertaking by the appellants/applicants, we consider that this appeal and the Interlocutory Applications ought to be closed, sustaining the judgment impugned in this appeal in its entirety, with the only caveat that the applications of the appellants/applicants shall be verified by the State on the basis of the documents furnished by them and, if some of the documents demanded by way of the notification dated 17.06.2025 are not furnished, the same will be verified from the State records/database and, in the event of the rejection of their applications, each of the appellants/applicants shall be communicated the reason(s) for such rejection. We order accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also modify the judgment impugned to the extent that we absolve the appellants/applicants from paying the cost of Rs. 10,000/- and we also make this appeal as well as the Interlocutory Applications cost easy. Accordingly, we close this appeal along with the Interlocutory Applications with the expectation that such exercise, as directed above, shall be carried out and concluded within a period of three months from today, keeping in mind that such exercise must be meaningful, meaning thereby that the number of vacancies commensurate with the number of the appellants and the applicants must remain unfilled for such verification to be meaningful. The appeal and the Interlocutory Applications stand disposed off accordingly.”

11. On perusal of the above order passed by the Division Bench, it is seen that the issue has not been decided on merit as regards the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 17.06.2025, but on the concession of the parties. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected interlocutory applications were closed while sustaining the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge with an observation that the applications of the appellants/applicants shall be verified by the State on the basis of the documents furnished by them and, if some of the documents demanded by way of the notification dated 17.06.2025 are not furnished, the same will be verified from the State records/database and, in the event of the rejection their applications, each of the appellants/applicants shall communicated the reason(s) for such rejection.

12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by the parties as well as in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the writ appeal (supra), I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be served if this writ petition is disposed of by granting similar relief to the petitioners without entering into the merit of the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 17.06.2025 as legality of the impugned Notification dated 17.06.2025 has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition.

13. Accordingly, on consensus, it is provided that the applications of the appellants/applicants shall be verified by the State on the basis of the documents furnished by them and, if some of the documents demanded by way of the notification dated 17.06.2025 are not furnished, the same will be verified from the State records/database and, in the event of the rejection their applications, each of the appellants/applicants shall communicated the reason(s) for such rejection.

14. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant