Partly allowed

The Principal and Secretary v. Purabi Singha and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Mar 2021I.A.(Civil)/257/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to College authorities to complete selection process and make appointment despite interim order. Appointment remains conditional pending final decision in main writ petition regarding marks for teaching experience.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to applicant authorities to declare selection result and make appointment, subject to final outcome of main writ petition with no vested right accruing.

The Principal and Secretary Vs Purabi Singha and 5… — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010016152021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/257/2021

¶5

THE PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY

¶6

B. B. K. COLLEGE, NAGAON, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781311

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

PURABI SINGHA AND 5 ORS. D/O. PRADIP KR. SINGHA, R/O. KRISHNANAGAR (UTTAR ADHIYABARI), P.O. BARPETA ROAD, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM EDUCATION (HIGHER)DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19

¶11

4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19

¶12

5:THE INSPECTOR OF COLLEGES ASSAM OFFICER OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

6:THE CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE B B K COLLEGE NAGAON DIST- BARPETA ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MD. A J ATIA

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 17-03-2021

¶20

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the authorities of the B.B.K. College, Nagaon in Barpeta district. Also heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for Ms. Purabi Singha, writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 for the present interlocutory application as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 being the authorities under the Higher Education Department of Government of Assam.

¶21

The petitioner had submitted her candidature pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.07.2015, amongst others, for the post of Assistant Professor in Education in the B.B.K. College, Nagaon in Barpeta district. In the said process, the selection committee of B.B.K. College, Nagaon, Barpeta had selected the petitioner. In the selection process an Office Memorandum of the Higher Education Department dated 14.08.2015 was taken into consideration which allows two marks for each year of experience of teaching, subject to a maximum of ten marks. The petitioner was accordingly given eight marks under that category. When the matter was placed before the Director of Higher Education Assam for necessary approval, the recommendation by the selection committee of the College authorities was rejected by the order dated 17.04.2017 with a direction to re-advertise the post by taking a view that as per the Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012 a maximum of five marks can be allotted to teaching experience whereas the petitioner was given eight marks.

¶22

Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department of Government of Assam defends the said decision of the Director of Higher Education, Assam by taking the stand that the instant selection is for a vacancy which had arisen prior to 14.08.2015 and

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

therefore, the process would be governed by the Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012 and not 14.08.2015.

¶25

While admitting the writ petition, an interim order dated 18.05.2018 was passed directing the authorities not to declare the result of the selection process without the leave of the Court.

¶26

Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the College authorities, who are applicant in the present interlocutory application, makes a submission that because of the interim order, the students of the College are suffering inasmuch as they are not having the adequate number of Assistant Professors in the subject Education.

¶27

We have taken note of that the said interim order had already continued since 18.05.2018 and the students were deprived of an Assistant Professor since the year 2015 when the advertisement was issued. Without expressing any view on the merit of the prima facie case being made out by the petitioner or to that effect the stand taken by the Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department, we take note of the balance of convenience in continuing with the interim order in the present form.

¶28

We have specifically taken note of that from the point of view of the interest of the students of the College, the balance of convenience would require that the selection process be brought to its logical end at the earliest and the appointment be made. But as we have not taken any call on the prima facie case being made out either by the petitioner or the counter case made out by the respondents and have taken into consideration only the balance of convenience which includes the injury that the students are suffering, we modify the order dated 18.05.2018 granting leave to the applicant College authorities to bring the process of selection to its logical end by declaring the result and making the appointment if necessary. But however, as neither the prima facie case has been decided nor the irreparable loss that the writ petitioner may suffer has also been decided, we provide that if the process is brought to its logical end and appointment is made that shall be strictly subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. All such appointment order issued shall strictly mention that the appointment is conditional subject to the outcome of this writ petition and a reference being made in the appointment order to the present writ petition making it clear that no vested right would be accrued to any person pursuant to such appointment till WP(C) No. 3141/2018 is finally decided.

¶29

I.A. stands closed in the above terms.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

Comparing Assistant

The Principal and Secretary v. Purabi Singha and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal and Secretary v. Purabi Singha and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

On the Death of Tayebur Rahman, His Legal Heir, Ubaidullah Vs Preetom Saikia and 2 Ors.

Syed Faruk Hussain Khan Vs Pritom Saikia and 4 Ors.

Tirtha Nath Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Selina Aktar Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nareswar Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Chowkham Borgohain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.