WP(C) 5668/2015. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | WP(C) 5668/2015 |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2021 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
WP(C) No.5441/2015 with
WP(C) No.5668/2015
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
24.01.2017
This order will dispose of both WP(C) Nos.5441 and 5668/ 2015, as subject matter of the two writ petitions are inter-related and identical.
Both the writ petitions were heard on 19.01.2017 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment. Accordingly judgment is dictated in the open Court.
Heard Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.5441/ 2015, Mr. SK Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.5668/ 2015, Mr. B Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. SN Sarma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Governing Body of Biswanath College. Also heard Mr. A Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, University Grants Commission (UGC) and Mr. R Saloi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.5441/ 2015 (who is respondent No.7 in WP(C) No.5668/ 2015).
Matter relates to selection and appointment of Principal in the Biswanath College in the district of Sonitpur.
I n WP(C) No.5441/ 2015, it is stated that an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper, “The Assam Tribune” on 07.12.2014 for the post of Principal in Biswanath College (College). Petitioner responded to the said advertisement. However, for undisclosed reason, the interview was not held whereafter, the post was re-advertised in the said newspaper on
12.04.2015. I n the re-advertisement, it was mentioned that candidates who had already applied for the post of Principal pursuant to the earlier advertisement need not apply again. Thereafter, interview was held on
27.05.2015. According to the petitioner, in this interview, he was selected and placed in the first position having fulfilled all eligibility criteria. Though recommendation was made by the Governing Body, Director of Higher Education, Assam (Director) cancelled the said selection on 10.07.2015 and directed re-initiation of the selection process. Following such directive, fresh
WPC Nos.5668 & 5441/2015 Page 1 of 11
interview was held on 25.08.2015. Altogether seven candidates, including petitioner and respondent No.6 appeared in the interview. I t is stated that in the said interview, petitioner was treated as an overaged candidate and not selected. On the contrary, the Selection Committee undeservingly awarded 10 marks under the head of “administrative experience” to respondent No.6 and thereby, selected him. Governing Body of the College thereafter adopted resolution on 26.08.2015 to appoint respondent No.6 as Principal of the College and forwarded the same to the Director for approval.
Contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 did not have the eligibility for appointment as Principal. I t is stated that respondent No.6 did not have any guideship from Gauhati University, which is the parent University of the College; rather, he had guideship from a private University called, Himalayan University in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. I t is stated that Himalayan University is not a recognized University under the UGC and does not have jurisdiction over the State of Assam. Petitioner has contended that he is the only eligible candidate amongst all the candidates who had appeared in the interview and, therefore, the Selection Committee made a manifest error in selecting respondent No.6 overlooking the eligibility and better merit of the petitioner. I t is however, contended that respondent No.6 is a teacher in the College in the Department of Zoology and possibly this had influenced the selection.
Aggrieved, the writ petition came to be filed.
On 09.09.2015, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that no appointment should be made to the post of Principal of the College. Thereafter, on 22.09.2015, this Court issued notice and passed an interim order directing the Director of Higher Education not to approve the recommendation of the Governing Body for the post of Principal without the leave of the Court.
Governing Body of the College (respondent Nos.3 & 4) in their affidavit has stated that the interview which was held on 25.08.2015 was a transparent one and was conducted strictly as per rules and regulations of UGC and the State Government. Earlier interview held on 27.05.2015 was
WPC Nos.5668 & 5441/2015 Page 2 of 11
cancelled by the Governing Body of the College on 02.06.2015 because it was found that the local MLA was a member of the Selection Committee and he had taken active part in awarding marks to the candidates. So it was decided to reconstitute the Selection Committee. After obtaining approval of the Director, fresh interview was held on 25.08.2015 by the reconstituted Selection Committee. I n this interview, 7 candidates had appeared. After the statement of marks was prepared, it was found that respondent No.6 stood first and another candidate Dr. Ajit Hazarika (petitioner in WP(C) No.5668/ 2015) secured the second position. Petitioner has secured the third position only. Petitioner’s contention that he was the only eligible candidate amongst all the candidates who had appeared in the interview, has been denied. Besides, it is stated that under the head “administrative experience”, respondent No.6 was awarded 6 marks and not 10. Marks were allotted as per prescribed guidelines. I t is stated that respondent No.6 got research guide-ship from Himalayan University...
To continue reading
Request your trial