The Gauhati High Court clarifies that when selection committee marks are re-visited and new irregularities or violations of governing guidelines are alleged and left unanswered, the principle of constructive res judicata does not bar fresh judicial review. The judgment upholds the ability of aggrieved applicants to seek re-examination on substantive new grounds and affirms the need for administrative decisions to comply strictly with articulated selection guidelines—serving as binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court in government service appointments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/4843/2023 of MD. MAZID ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. |
| CNR | GAHC010187302023 |
| Date of Registration | 22-08-2023 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Gauhati High Court and subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the principle of constructive res judicata bars fresh writ petitions challenging appointment process when selection marks are re-visited and allegations of guideline violations remain unanswered. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when selection-related marks are re-visited based on administrative review, and there are pending allegations of violations of specific selection guidelines which remain unrefuted, constructive res judicata does not preclude fresh challenge. The writ petitioner’s new allegations regarding the application and calculation of marks as per the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018, which were not addressed by the respondents in their affidavits, constitute fresh cause for judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, is mandated to re-examine the award of marks in compliance with the stated guidelines, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The case concerns challenges to the appointment of a school principal, involving repeated changes to selection marks by different committees, with the petitioner alleging unlawful allocation of marks in violation of the governing Office Memorandum. The petitioner challenged the process multiple times, with the court finding that re-visited marks and unanswered allegations required further administrative review. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court and relevant Assam state authorities handling service appointments |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in matters involving similar fact patterns relating to constructive res judicata and administrative review of selection irregularities |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The principle of constructive res judicata does not apply when administrative marks are re-visited after judicial direction, and new, unrebutted allegations of guideline violation arise.
- Courts may direct re-examination of selection processes even after previous litigation if the administrative record changes materially and compliance with relevant guidelines is in question.
- Lawyers should ensure that any challenge to selection or appointment meticulously addresses the latest available record and unaddressed procedural violations.
- Administrative authorities are required to provide a personal hearing to aggrieved candidates and to strictly follow issued selection guidelines when making appointments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court first addressed the argument that the writ petition was barred by constructive res judicata, referring to Explanation V of Section 11 CPC and relevant Supreme Court judgments cited by the parties.
- It analyzed the change in administrative record: following previous directions, the selection marks were re-visited, resulting in different outcomes than those previously challenged.
- The court observed that the petitioner’s core allegations regarding marks allocation—specifically the use of the wrong academic year and improper allocation for publications—remained unanswered by respondent affidavits.
- Since the fresh allegations arose out of a materially altered factual context (i.e., a new version of the marks statement) and were not dealt with in previous orders, the doctrine of constructive res judicata did not bar fresh judicial scrutiny.
- The court relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018 as the controlling guideline for evaluating validity of the selection process.
- It concluded that the matter required re-examination by the Secretary, School Education Department, directing that a decision be made after hearing both sides and in accordance with the original guidelines. Consequential actions are to follow such re-examination.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondent No. 6 was awarded extra marks in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018, including use of an incorrect academic year and improper allocation for academic publications.
- The petitioner was entitled to higher marks under the proper application of guidelines.
- The principle of res judicata was not applicable as the substantive issue had not been finally adjudicated in light of changed facts.
- Cited multiple authorities on constructive res judicata and maintainability of subsequent challenges.
Respondent No. 6
- Contended that the petitioner’s claims are barred by constructive res judicata under Explanation V of Section 11 CPC, as similar prayers were previously made and disposed of.
- Argued that no new relief could be granted when earlier writs covered the same substantive grounds.
- Asserted that marks have been re-visited and both candidates now had equal marks, thus negating grievance on merits.
- Cited relevant Supreme Court authorities supporting the res judicata bar.
State/Department
- Asserted that the administrative actions taken were in strict compliance with previous High Court directions and approval of competent authorities.
- Noted that no formal appointment was issued due to the subsisting interim order.
Factual Background
In 2019, the post of Principal at Bamundongra Higher Secondary School, Barpeta, Assam was advertised, and both petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied. Following the interview, a panel ranked respondent No. 6 first. The petitioner challenged the selection process, particularly the allocation of marks, and initiated multiple rounds of litigation. Following judicial directions, the department re-visited the allocation of marks multiple times. The petitioner alleged continued irregularities in awarding marks under the guidelines prescribed by the Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018, prompting further writ petitions seeking quashing of results and appointment orders favoring respondent No. 6.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (constructive res judicata): The court analyzed its applicability, focusing on Explanation V regarding the deemed refusal of claims not expressly granted.
- Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2018: This directive governs the awarding of marks and selection process for the post of Principal in provincialised higher secondary schools. The court scrutinized compliance with this memorandum, particularly in how academic results and publications are counted towards selection marks.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed administrative review with a mandatory personal hearing to both parties before any final determination or action—ensuring procedural fairness in administrative re-evaluation.
- It clarified that prior administrative statements or orders set aside or modified under judicial supervision must be re-examined in light of fresh, unanswered allegations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court affirms existing law on constructive res judicata under certain circumstances but clarifies exception when new facts and unanswered allegations arise after administrative actions are re-visited.